Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like to speak on my amendment that is up for a vote.

I ask unanimous consent that I have 2 minutes to speak on my amendment.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment. I think all of us would agree that we would like to design an immigration program that benefited America, that actually brightened the future for Americans, for our children, and that we do not want an immigration system that is going to invite people from all over the world who will come here and be a burden to the American taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the way this bill is written, the Z visas we offer all the illegal immigrants in this country do not require that these illegals have health insurance before they are given these legal passes. That means they will continue to be a heavy burden on the American health care system.

Senator Kennedy has said the $500 one-time fee they have to pay is enough to cover these costs. I know every American wishes they could pay $500 and have free health insurance for life but, unfortunately, it is more expensive than that. Also, Senator Kennedy has said these types of minimum policies cost well over $2,000 a year, which is, frankly, not true. Many of us have policies that cost less than $1,000 a year for a high-deductible policy, which is the minimum level we ask for.

The least we can ask of these immigrants we are granting permanent legal status in this country is not to be a burden on Americans for their health care. To have a minimum level of health insurance is the least we can ask. This amendment would require Z visa holders to have that minimum level, and I ask all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on a resolution I have submitted today that declares June 6 a national

day of prayer and rededication for the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces and their mission.

As my colleagues know, when 73,000 Americans stormed the beaches at Normandy, France, on June 6, 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt went on national radio to lead the Nation in prayer for their success.

With more than 350,000 men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces deployed worldwide today, and many of these troops directly engaged in armed combat in Iraq and Afghanistan against determined and ruthless enemies, President Roosevelt's words calling on all Americans to ``devote themselves to a continuance of prayer'' for American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in harm's way are as appropriate today as they were in June of 1944.

As we have witnessed, the war on terror will be long and hard. Unfortunately, the sacrifice will continue to be immeasurable in human terms. It is appropriate to make every anniversary of D-day, June 6, a national day of prayer for the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Now I wish to read President Roosevelt's D-day radio prayer:

My Fellow Americans

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I

knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our

Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater

operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in

prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have

set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our

Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free

a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms,

stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and

hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces.

Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return

again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the

righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without

rest--until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by

noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the

violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They

fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end

conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice

arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They

yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the

haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive

them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives,

sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts

and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to

rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of

great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single

day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the

desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a

continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again

when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips,

invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to

redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the

material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail,

to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our

sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in

our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade.

Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not

the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but

fleeting moment--let not these deter us in our unconquerable

purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces

of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and

racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and

with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a

sure peace--a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy

men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom,

reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.

Amen.

This same prayer will be read in the Chamber of the House of Representatives today, and I hope this Chamber will take up this resolution at some point and make June 6 a day of prayer for our Nation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1197.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to highlight one of the most important domestic issues this country is facing, and that is rising health care costs. I think it is also important to point out that nearly 10 million noncitizens are uninsured according to the September 2006 U.S. Census report on the uninsured.

Since no hospital can legally deny a person health care because of their immigration status or inability to pay, my amendment would help prevent that cost from being shifted to the American taxpayers in the form of uncompensated care. Since about three-fourths of all uncompensated care costs are paid by taxpayers in the form of national and State programs, it is imperative the Senate pass my amendment that would require Z visa holders to maintain a minimum level of private health coverage.

Under this amendment, minimum health coverage would be defined as a high-deductible health care plan. It is my firm belief these visa holders should take some responsibility for their own health care and avoid burdening American taxpayers when they have medical problems.

By requiring Z visa holders to have a minimum level of private health insurance, it will help keep individuals off public assistance and out of the emergency rooms. According to the Economic Research Initiative of the Uninsured, immigrants as a group are nearly three times more likely to be uninsured than native-born U.S. citizens.

I am almost certain some of my colleagues will say it is not possible for these visa holders to afford a private health insurance plan. In fact, there are plenty of high-deductible policies available on the individual market that are affordable, with an average cost of about $116 a month. Furthermore, these plans have seen only a 2.8-percent increase on an annual basis compared to 8 percent for all other types of health plans. This low rate of increase is another reason high- deductible health plans are affordable to those with lower incomes.

It is also important to point out that by having their own high- deductible health plans, visa holders will be able to keep their policy regardless of their employer. Many employers who want less expensive labor will likely help their employees pay for these high-deductible policies.

Mr. President, it is also important to point out that there is a precedent for this type of action. In 1993, the Department of State issued regulations requiring students entering the United States under exchange visas to have health coverage. This amendment would only extend this policy to Z visa holders.

What is most troubling to me is that this legislation before us does almost nothing to stem the rising costs of uncompensated care. If we do not pass my amendment, the growing cost of uncompensated care currently at $41 billion per year will only be exacerbated.

Supporters of this bill will point to the State Impact Assistant Grant Program that is established in the legislation. This grant program would be funded through fees paid by the immigrant, and it would be administered by the Federal Government to repay States for health and education expenses.

However, even the bill language suggests, through a sense of the Congress, that this will not be enough to solve the problem of illegal immigrants using our health care services at a cost to the American taxpayer.

Our country is spending $2 trillion per year on health care. While my amendment does not address the entire problem, it does address the problem of noncitizens using our resources at a cost to the American taxpayer. In my opinion, there are many problems with this legislation. But I believe this amendment will at least improve upon this extremely flawed bill.

I yield the floor.

Right.

Generally, high-deductible plans are accompanied by the health savings account.

This is the minimum level as established by the high- deductible policies. Certainly, more comprehensive plans would fit in the context of the amendment.

For the first 5 years, that is correct. But that does not mean they cannot access any of our health clinics, emergency room services, and a lot of uncompensated care can be directed at the current group of illegal immigrants in our country.

Well, we are establishing a minimum level, which the minimum would be the high-deductible policies, often accompanied by health savings accounts. This does not prevent an immigrant from having a more comprehensive plan, an HMO. But the point of the amendment is not to mandate a comprehensive plan but to establish a minimum level of coverage, which is more affordable particularly to low-waged workers.

The average of high-deductible plans is $116 a month. I will just say as an aside, I just bought a high-deductible plan for my 22-year-old daughter at $65 a month. This, obviously, leaves some to be paid by the workers themselves. But it avoids the high-risk cost of a worker who may have complicated, very expensive problems, for that whole bill to land on a hospital, which often happens.

Well, we do not specify. It may be something we want to cover in an additional amendment. But many States, as you know, now have high-risk pools which are available to all workers in the State regardless of immigration status.

This certainly may not cover every possible problem. But if we are going to issue Z visas, I think the point is that they become an asset to our economic environment in this country, and certainly if they are uninsurable that may suggest that they are not a viable worker as well.

Obviously, the uninsured are a problem, and many of us are working on ways to solve that. It is one thing to ask American taxpayers to help take care of their fellow citizens. It is another thing to ask Americans to help assist those from all over the world. Certainly, our hearts go out to anyone with health problems, but we cannot ask the American taxpayer to subsidize low-wage workers for employers who are using them in this country.

There is obviously a lot of research that refutes that. The Heritage Foundation has come out with quite an extensive study that suggests the low-wage workers, undereducated

immigrants in this country today, cost an average of $19,000 a year more in taxes than they pay. This group, as a whole, over the next three decades will cost $2.4 trillion to the American taxpayer. So there is a lot of research that suggests that undereducated, low- skilled workers are going to be a net loss to the American taxpayer.

Certainly, the Senator will agree it should not be the obligation of the American taxpayer to subsidize low-wage workers for employers. Frankly, I believe if we ask these immigrants to pay their fair share, employers are more likely to hire American workers in the first place rather than lower wage workers who are actually being subsidized by the taxpayer. This health plan is one idea to ask these immigrants and their employers to carry the fair load and not to dump the cost of health care on other workers in this country.

I think the Senator obviously knows--and the bill language suggests--this is a small token of what the real costs are, not only for health care but education, daycare, and other services that are often used by these immigrants. Again, to ask these immigrants or their employers if they would like to assist in paying $100 or a little more a month to keep them from becoming a burden to the taxpayers is a small thing to ask for someone who is taking advantage of the opportunities in this country.

I thank the Senator.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the Vitter amendment No. 1157, which strikes title VI of the bill, the title that authorizes Z visas for illegal immigrants.

Z visas are amnesty, pure and simple. They allow illegal immigrants to stay here permanently without ever returning home to their countries. This is the provision that has so many Americans upset.

By removing Z visas from the bill, illegal immigrants will be able to go home and get right with the law. Once they have returned, they can apply for legal entry, just like everyone else, but they would not be allowed to violate our laws.

I know many will say this amendment will be too disruptive to the illegal workers who would ultimately be forced to return to their home countries, but I disagree. Last year, 51 million people traveled to and from the United States from abroad, and 13 million of these travelers were from Mexico alone. People are very mobile, and moving this number of people around is relatively easy today. In fact, this bill acknowledges this very point by requiring them to go home to apply for citizenship.

I have also heard some say the opposition to amnesty is being driven by an anti-immigrant bias. This is also untrue. Americans are extremely pro-immigrant, but they are upset that their Government has lied to them for 20 years on this issue, and they have lost confidence in our ability to control our borders.

Let me be clear: I am pro-immigrant. I believe in legal immigration. I want people to come here, respect our laws, embrace our values, and become American citizens, but we must reject amnesty if we ever expect that to happen.

That is why eliminating the amnesty provision in this bill is the most compassionate and pro-immigrant thing we can do.

By striking the Z visas from this bill, this amendment will allow us to uphold the rule of law, create fairness for millions of people who want to come here legally, and allow us to focus on securing our borders.

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

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, my amendment calls for the Food and Drug Administration to conduct an assessment of the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, which we refer to as REMS, for Mifeprex, commonly known as RU-486, within 7 months of the effective date of this legislation.

According to the legislation before us, any drug that is currently on the market with restrictions on its distribution or use, which includes RU-486, would be required to have a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. This means that RU-486 would be subject to periodic assessment of how well the risk management plan, including its restrictions, is working. Unfortunately, the bill does not establish a deadline for the risk evaluation for RU-486.

The current RU-486 abortion regimen was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in September of 2000. Since that time, the regimen has been linked to the deaths of seven women, including three Americans. The public has learned since November of 2004, through the release of documents by the FDA through a Freedom of Information Act request, that over 1,000 additional women have experienced adverse effects from the RU-486 regimen, including 9 life-threatening incidences, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection. It should be noted this dangerous drug is attacking young, healthy women.

I also want to point out the approval process for RU-486 was highly irregular in the first place. The drug regimen was approved under FDA subpart H, which is a regulation that applies to certain new drugs used for treating serious or life-threatening illnesses. While certain conditions may arise during pregnancy that are dangerous, pregnancy itself is hardly a serious or life-threatening illness.

The RU-486 regimen actually requires the use of two drugs: RU-486, which kills the child, and misoprostol,

which causes the uterus to expel the dead baby. G.D. Searle, the manufacturer of misoprostol, never sought to have its drug approved by the FDA for abortions. Nevertheless, the FDA, in what appears to be an unprecedented decision, mandated that misoprostol be used for unapproved ``off-label'' use in an abortion regimen along with RU-486.

Finally, the FDA approved the RU-486 regimen based on data submitted from clinical trials in which there was no control group comparison. This directly violates Federal law and appears to be unprecedented as well.

In my opinion, the FDA has not done enough to curb the use of this deadly drug, and for far too long the FDA has put politics ahead of science and ahead of women's health. When the Clinton administration expedited the approval process for RU-486 in the final days of its tenure, many medical professionals expressed serious concerns about the FDA's rush to bring RU-486 to market. Since then, the statistics have proven these concerns to be well-founded.

The legislation we are considering today has everything to do with drug safety. Yet we have a drug on the market that has killed several women and injured many others. My amendment simply sets a 7-month deadline for the FDA to assess the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for RU-486. Given all the adverse events associated with this drug, this is the least we can do.

This is not an abortion issue, it is a women's health issue. Even those who support abortion agree there are serious problems with this drug. Let me read several quotes from abortion supporters which were part of a New York Times story that ran last year: ``None of these women should be dying; it's shocking,'' said Dr. Peter Bours, an abortion provider in Portland, OR, who is rethinking whether to offer pill-based or medical abortions.

Dr. Warren Hern, an abortion provider in Denver, said the latest reports demonstrated that abortions by RU-486, or Mifeprex, were far riskier than the surgical ones. ``I think surgery should be the procedure of choice,'' Dr. Hern said. ``Pills,'' he said, ``are a lousy way to perform an abortion.''

I quote again from another source: ``The complications associated with RU-486 far exceed the complications of surgical abortion,'' said Dr. Damon Stutes. He is an abortion provider in Reno, NV. He refuses to offer pill-based abortions.

Dr. Stutes, whose clinic has been bombed, said he was uneasy about agreeing with abortion proponents on anything. But the truth is the truth, he said.

Another quote:

One needs to tell patients that the medical procedure, even

though it seems more natural, may be more likely to result in

death.

That is Dr. Phillip G. Stubblefield, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University.

It is clear that even the supporters of abortion believe this drug is dangerous. It also appears that even the leader of the abortion industry--Planned Parenthood--supports actions by the FDA to further examine the safety of the drug. Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for Medical Affairs at Planned Parenthood, told the San Francisco Chronicle:

We are glad there will be continuing investigations by the

FDA. We will work with the CDC, the FDA, and academicians to

figure this out.

The FDA needs to quickly complete its risk evaluation on RU-486. That is what my amendment guarantees. I urge my colleagues to support it. I understand that Senator Kennedy will accept a voice vote on this. I look forward to supporting it, along with all of my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I will yield to the chairman for a UC request before I bring up my amendment.

Mr. President, again, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I call up amendment No. 930 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, my amendment provides what we call an earmark shield for the funds authorized in this bill, the America COMPETES Act, S. 761.

Specifically, it establishes a 60-vote point of order against appropriations bills that contain congressional earmarks for the funds authorized in this bill. Let me be very clear. This does not apply to all appropriations bills or to all appropriations earmarks. It simply applies to those bills that contain appropriations earmarks for the programs authorized in the bill that we are considering today, the America COMPETES Act.

What we are trying to avoid is setting up a new fund for new earmarks, so we are setting this bill aside and protecting it from earmarks. If an appropriations bill comes to the floor for funding of these programs but without earmarks, no point of order would lie against the bill. In a similar way, if an appropriations bill comes to the floor with earmarks for other programs outside of the programs funded through the America COMPETES Act, then no point of order would lie against that bill either.

My amendment only creates an earmark shield for the program we are

funding today. The goal of this amendment is to ensure the funds authorized in this bill are allocated according to a competitive or merit-based process.

As my colleagues know, congressional earmarks circumvent the normal competitive or merit-based process, and award funds based on politics. This bill is focused on competition. Earmarking perverts the competitive process and substitutes the judgment of lawmakers and their staff for professional scientists and engineers who truly recognize a competitive proposal that merits funding.

Congress has been able to keep earmarks out of the National Science Foundation and it has made that foundation one of the most successful Federal science agencies. The bill recognizes and affirms what is already explicitly in the bill. Let me read a section from the America COMPETES Act. My amendment is consistent with the stated intent of the bill, which says on page 183 that nothing in divisions A or D shall be interpreted to require the National Science Foundation to ``alter or modify its merit-based system or peer review process.''

Many of America's leading institutions oppose earmarks for research because they understand earmarks siphon funds away from the research programs their talented researchers could compete for. Several universities have official policies in place opposing congressional earmarks. Let me read a few of their policies. I will start with the University of Michigan and I will quote from their policy statement.

The University of Michigan supports competitive peer review

as the primary and best mechanism to allocate Federal

research funds. Consequently, it is the policy of the

university not to seek or accept government earmarks in

support of faculty research.

Here is a quote from Yale:

Yale University does not seek appropriations for individual

research projects that would circumvent existing merit-based

procedures of Federal agencies for selecting projects for

funding. The university has long held that evaluation of

proposed projects on the basis of merit as judged by peer

review is the best method of identifying the most promising

research or scholarly projects.

And a quote from MIT's policy:

MIT has a long-standing policy that prohibits the knowing

acceptance of grants and contracts funded via Congressional

action. Such awards are known as ``earmarks,'' and funding is

not generally the result of peer review. Earmarked funds are

often a way to secure funds for new buildings, and for major

equipment needed for cutting edge research, but

institutionally MIT avoids seeking or accepting earmarked

funds.

It seems the whole country is starting to realize that the earmarking process we have adopted in this Congress is wasteful and actually subverts the goals we set for many of these bills. It is clear we do not need to earmark funds in order for our funding programs to be effective. My amendment simply creates an earmark shield for funds authorized in this bill to ensure they are allocated in the most competitive way.

It is important to recognize that a number of Members of this Senate from many different committees have placed the authorization of this money in very specific categories that we need to protect and not subvert. It is time for the Senate to begin taking steps to discourage the use of earmarks when appropriating funds for important programs and we need to make sure this bill is not a new slush fund for Congress. My amendment will not only preserve the integrity of the competitive allocation process, but it will also make America more competitive by making these programs more effective.

I thank the Senator for his courtesy in allowing me to bring up this bill. I understand we will be voting on it as part of a number of bills after the lunch hour.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for all his work on this bill. The question is, after we have gone through these many months of work on this bill to make America more competitive and we have directed funds to the Federal agencies that we think are most appropriate and would be most helpful in raising the quality and skill level of our labor force, do we want it to happen? Do we want this authorization bill to be implemented as we have written it? As the sponsors have been very careful to point out, this is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. What my amendment does is ensure that this bill is carried out the way it is authorized and that the appropriators do not take money for the National Science Foundation and say: I want some to go to my State or to this university, and we spread it out instead of using the merit-based peer review process. We change a bill that has a lot of thought and bipartisan support, and we basically turn it over to the appropriators to change. If Members want this bill implemented the way it is written, please support the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Senator is correct. I wish to bring up three amendments and briefly speak on them, if I can.

That is fine. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to bring up amendment No. 928.

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

Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for giving me time to speak on this important issue. The issue of American competitiveness is very important to me, as I know it is to all Americans. It is the security of our jobs and our economic future. I am here today to propose some amendments. I will begin with one that I think will improve the bill.

I wish to first discuss Sarbanes-Oxley and how it relates to competitiveness in America. The bill we are discussing, which is S. 761, the America COMPETES Act, seeks to improve America's international competitiveness by strengthening the quality of our labor force. However, labor is only one component of economic growth. Capital investment is another critical component of any vibrant and growing economy. America's competitiveness is being challenged by other countries, not only on the labor front but with capital formation as well.

We could say, as Senator Alexander mentioned, this bill focuses on brainpower. What we are trying to do is say brainpower plus capital equals success in America.

In 2000, $9 out of every $10 in stock offerings from foreign companies were invested inside the United States. In 2005, that number completely flipped, and $9 of every $10 in stock offerings from foreign companies were invested outside the United States. Some might argue this is simply the result of foreign companies wishing to list closer to home, but I am afraid that is not the case. Cross-border listings are at an alltime high, and we are losing the competition for foreign capital.

This chart demonstrates how the United States is doing compared to others when it comes to attracting foreign capital. We begin in 2002 when Sarbanes-Oxley took effect. One can see this dark-blue line at the bottom is the U.S. exchanges, which have stayed basically flat, while markets in Hong Kong, London, and Singapore have continued to grow. There is no reason we should continue to lose ground to these other countries when it comes to investing.

We need to remember as Americans that the dollars which are used for research and development come from investment capital. There is no need for us to be spending billions and billions of dollars to encourage Americans to be better at math and science if the research and development is moving to other countries.

Some say these trends are simply the result of more sophisticated markets springing up abroad, but the evidence suggests otherwise. When one speaks with international CEOs making the decisions to list on foreign exchanges, they repeatedly cite Sarbanes-Oxley as the reasons they have listed abroad. That is why a report commissioned by Senator Schumer and Mayor Bloomberg cited section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley as the reason international companies are no longer bringing their capital to the United States.

Section 404 requires public companies to conduct an additional audit on their internal controls. These audits are most expensive for smaller companies. Numerous reports have found that section 404 produced a heavy cost upon small, publicly traded companies without a proportional benefit. As a result, the regulatory burdens of section 404 on small businesses and companies--well, companies are choosing to raise capital in other markets.

A recent GAO study, requested by Senator Snowe, found the cost for small public companies to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley has been disproportionately higher than for large companies. Small businesses in the United States, afraid of complying with the complicated provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley, are choosing not to grow by listing publicly and are, instead, staying small and remaining private. This prevents capital formation, it stunts job growth, and it makes our country less competitive in the global economy.

This is why Alan Greenspan recently said:

One good thing; Sarbox requires a CEO to certify the

financial statement. That's new and that's helpful. Having

said that, the rest we could do without. Section 404 is a

nightmare.

This is not a politically inspired amendment. This is an amendment that recognizes we are hurting ourselves and we need to fix it. This is why an SEC advisory committee recommended that small businesses be exempt from section 404, and this is why I am offering the amendment today.

My amendment, No. 928, would make section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley optional for smaller companies with market capitalization of less than $700 million, revenue of less than $125 million, or fewer than 1,500 shareholders. Section 404 reporting would be optional for these smaller companies, but they would have to notify their shareholders in their annual report.

The Senate's Committee on Small Business held a hearing on this topic this past week, and I applaud Senator Kerry for looking into this important issue. As my colleagues may know, both Republicans and Democrats have suggested the need for reform, which makes my amendment consistent with the bipartisan nature of this bill. My proposal has been introduced as a freestanding bill in this Congress as well as the last Congress. It has also been introduced as part of a bill in the House by Representative Gregory Meeks, Democrat from New York, and enjoys broad bipartisan support.

Despite broad bipartisan support for my amendment, I expect some will object to it based on timing. They may believe the Securities and Exchange Commission is preparing to deal with this problem, so we should give them more time to work. This is something I believed several years ago. But that is not only a weak excuse, it is a complete copout. It has been 5 years since Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted, and each year that goes by we are chasing more capital out of our country.

The SEC has a responsibility to address this issue, but so do we. We wrote the law. Congress created this problem, and we should not hide behind some regulation when we have the ability to fix it. Furthermore, it is not clear that future action by the SEC will solve the problem. According to the Independent Community Bankers of America, the proposed internal control guidance

under section 404 is unlikely to reduce audit costs, particularly for smaller public companies.

Some may also object because this provision has not been fully examined in the committee of jurisdiction. This is a poor excuse as well. American competitiveness should not suffer because a committee in Congress has failed to do its job. A bill such as Senate Bill 761, which seeks to improve the competitiveness of our labor force but does nothing for capital formation, may result in a highly qualified labor force but without capital to spur economic growth and create the jobs they need to make.

This is a competitiveness issue. It should be debated on this bill and we should all support it. There is no plan to consider this legislation later this year, and it is probably the last opportunity we will have to address it before the next election. My amendment is cosponsored by Senators Martinez, Cornyn, and Ensign, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Yes, I do.

So the Senator would prefer my not bringing it up but only describing it?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator, and I think he will find this amendment has a lot of bipartisan support. It actually was a part of the original bill. It is amendment No. 929, and it expands the study on barriers to innovation, which is in section 1102 of the bill.

What we do is ask that this study include the impact of the IRS Tax Code on innovation. It is very consistent with the bill. My amendment does not remove anything currently called for in the study, it simply adds the provision that allows this study to include the effect of our Tax Code on innovation in America.

Specifically, the amendment calls on the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, through the National Academy of Sciences, to study all provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including tax provisions, compliance costs, and reporting requirements that discourage innovation.

The IRS code increasingly overwhelms Americans with its growing complexity. It stymies entrepreneurship and economic growth, and it threatens to prevent future generations of Americans from enjoying the sort of upward mobility their parents and grandparents enjoyed. This important provision was originally included in the study in last year's bill but it was dropped. My amendment puts it back in, and it will help us identify ways the IRS Tax Code is discouraging innovation and weakening American competitiveness.

I ask the Senator if he would still prefer I not bring it up? In the interest of time, it may be helpful to have it on the table, and we could perhaps then agree to it at a later time. Would the Senator still prefer I wait to bring it up?

I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor for the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 929.

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

Mr. President, I have explained what this amendment does. It is very simple. In addition to a study, if we are commissioning a study and paying for it, to find out what obstacles we have to innovation, the Tax Code is certainly something that is cited often by folks who invest and do the research and development, who are actually associated with innovation in the marketplace, so it makes sense that we include any obstacles in the Tax Code or any opportunities we may have, as the Senator from Tennessee suggested, to create incentives for investment and innovation.

There is a relationship between this amendment and the first one I brought up. I think we all know that investment, incentives for investment, are the catalyst for the research and development that results in innovation in the marketplace. As a nation, if we do not do more to attract capital, if we do not do more to encourage investment in our country, then those investments are not going to be here.

For many years we have been concerned that because of certain trade policies and other things we do internally, we have lost low-wage jobs. But increasingly we are hearing that because the investment dollars are moving overseas, behind those investment dollars go the high-tech jobs that are involved with research and development.

Both of these amendments are important. I would particularly like votes on this because it was stripped out once. I am concerned that if we do not have a vote and give the Members an opportunity to show support, particularly for this tax study, it will disappear again in conference.

My hope is we can have a vote and the yeas and nays on these amendments.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, in the interest of time--I know we are discussing two other amendments and the bill managers have asked me not to bring up a third. I will not bring it up at this time but I wish to speak on it, if that would expedite procedures here on the floor.

My third amendment, which is amendment No. 930, which we will bring up at a later time, establishes a 60-vote point of order against appropriations bills that contain congressional earmarks for funds authorized in this bill, S. 761, the America COMPETES Act.

The goal of this amendment is to ensure that funds authorized in the bill are allocated according to a competitive or merit-based process. As my colleagues know, congressional earmarks circumvent the normal competitive or merit-based process and award funds based on politics. My amendment is consistent with the stated intent of the bill, which says on page 183 that nothing in divisions A or D shall be interpreted to require the National Science Foundation to ``alter or modify its merit-review system or peer-review process'' or ``exclude the awarding of any proposal by means of the merit-review or peer-review process.''

My goal here is to make sure this new fund does not become a new pot for earmarks, that we start directing this new money back to our States or congressional districts because we put new funds on the table. If these and other funds authorized in the bill are going to be allocated in the most efficient and most competitive way, the Senate must take steps to discourage the use of earmarks when appropriating funds for these programs. My amendment will not only preserve the integrity of the competitiveness allocation process but it will make America more competitive by making these programs more effective.

In a bill that is about competition, this amendment makes sure the money is allocated on a merit-based competitive system instead of turning it into a new slush fund for Congress.

Out of respect for the managers, I will not bring that amendment up at this point but I hope to do that at a later time.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

For a clarification. The way this amendment is written, it is not all appropriations bills, just appropriations bills that are appropriating money for this act, the America COMPETES Act. We are not bringing in all the appropriations bills that will be brought to the floor.

The point is, we are creating this new fund for competition. Instead of us in the future redirecting these funds in all directions, the bill has been very careful to lay out where this money will go in a way that we think is most efficient. This money will be allocated on a merit- based system. We have seen some of it before, how the National Science Foundation and others are merit based. We want to keep it that

way. What we are trying to do is avoid, in the future, that this new money we have authorized starts being redirected. If something comes up that is important, that we agree on, we can always overcome a 60-vote point of order. But if we allow this to fester, as we have seen in the past, instead of going to create competition in America, it will be going off to special projects. So it focuses on this bill and prevents politically driven earmarks.

Certainly we have directed the money for this whole bill. It doesn't change that. This is all authorized. We are not talking about authorized dollars, we are talking about redirecting it based on political motives in the future.

I thank the Senator for allowing that clarification.

Could I make one additional comment?

Again, I appreciate the Senator's remarks, and obviously we don't want to tie the hands of Congress unnecessarily, but when we are speaking of earmarks--and we defined it in this amendment ourselves. When we take this bill that was created for the purpose of improving competitiveness in America and we earmark, which means we target it to a specific State, locality, or congressional district other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process--when we take what we have done and basically pervert it into a system where I want it to go to South Carolina, or the Senator wants it to go to Tennessee, that has nothing to do with the original intent of the bill, we call that an earmark. We would like to prevent that if we could with this one bill, but I appreciate the courtesy of both managers to allow us to explain. I hope we will have an opportunity to bring it up and offer it later.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the support of the majority. This is clearly a bipartisan idea. The underlying bill has in it a study to look at obstacles to innovation. This simply adds to that with a study of our Tax Code to see how it might be obstructing innovation and investment in our country.

It sounds as if we have good support. I encourage all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to vote for the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, in a few moments the Senate will vote on two amendments related to Sarbanes-Oxley. The first is the Dodd-Shelby amendment, which is a nonbinding resolution that suggests the SEC and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board move ahead with changing the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations. My amendment, which will come after that, actually changes the law in one small section of Sarbanes-Oxley, which would facilitate that happening.

Despite what has been reported today, my conversation with some of the regulators and some of the observers of the SEC is there is not real clarity as to how far the SEC can go in changing this one section that is problematic in Sarbanes-Oxley. We know from our work with Federal agencies that as long as there is doubt, there is no action. While there has been good intent from the SEC for many years, this bill has been destroying our capital formation in this country for nearly 5 years. Admittedly, Sarbanes-Oxley has done some good things, but I think it is beyond question particularly for small companies, small public companies, that section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley is doing untold harm in this country today. So the difference here is a nonbinding resolution which encourages the SEC to act and an amendment that actually makes that happen.

I am going to support the Dodd-Shelby amendment. While I have some problems with the specific findings, the intent is right. The regulators have a responsibility to continue to look at their regulations to make sure they encourage competition and good enterprise in our country. So I am going to support the amendment. But Congress also has a responsibility to make sure that the laws we pass work, and if they are not interpreted properly by our regulatory agencies, that we go back and make those changes to make it work.

So the ``sense of the Senate'' maintains the status quo for regulatory agencies to determine how we deal with Sarbanes-Oxley. While I know the chairman and ranking member remain hopeful that something will happen, the same thing was said to me well over a year ago when I talked to Chairman Cox and others that the changes were eminent, but since then in this country we have lost our status as the No. 1 market exchange. Instead of 9 out of every 10 IPOs being formed in this country with foreign capital, it is completely reversed, where 9 out of 10 are out of this country. Our trade competitors have Sarbanes-Oxley free zones that encourage capital to come that way instead of toward us. We cannot leave the responsibility for this law on the regulatory agencies.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for both amendments.

I thank Senator Martinez, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Ensign for supporting and cosponsoring my amendment. I also thank Democratic Congressman Gregory Meeks from New York for having the courage to introduce this measure in the House.

I also want to inform my colleagues that my amendment today is supported by the Independent Community Bankers of America. It is also being key voted by the Americans for Tax Reform, the Club for Growth, the Americans for Prosperity, and many other people who look at our economy across the country and realize it is time for Congress to act. We have waited for the SEC for 5 years and have seen capital chased from this country. It is time for Congress to take the responsibility for what we did in the first place, and I urge my colleagues to support both amendments.

I yield to my colleague, the Senator from Florida, to speak on behalf of my amendment.

Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: These bills are side-by-sides, correct? This is not a second-degree amendment.

My colleagues can vote for both of these amendments. I encourage Members of the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, to vote for both of them because both are needed. We need the SEC to take its responsibility. But since there is some concern as to how far the SEC can go to correct this problem, my amendment simply changes one aspect of Sarbanes-Oxley that allows small companies--companies with $125 million in revenue or less, or less than 1,500 shareholders--to voluntarily opt out of the external audit, with notification to their shareholders.

These are certainly not huge corporations. This certainly doesn't gut Sarbanes-Oxley. It does what so many economic experts have encouraged us to do for years, and that is to fix the one small part of Sarbanes- Oxley that costs small businesses in a disproportionate way.

I thank the managers and those who offered the side-by-side, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for both of them.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I am obviously disappointed the chairman will move to table. We have had a good debate on it. The debate on Sarbanes-Oxley has been going on for almost 5 years, since it was passed. Every time someone expresses a problem, they go right to section 404, and just to small businesses that are being hurt most by this.

I talked with the SEC well over a year ago. I heard exactly the same thing I am hearing today: We are on it. It is going to happen very soon.

Let me suggest this to my colleagues. Let us pass this bill today and send it to conference. That will be a few weeks of work. If the SEC responds, then take it out in conference. The Democrats are in control of the conference. There is no harm done. But let us not continue to allow investment capital to be shipped out of this country without doing anything about it.

The only reason the SEC is even talking about it now is that we introduced this bill with Democrats and Republicans in the House. It is time to act now. Please vote for this bill. Let us move it to conference and shake up the SEC.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, in January this body took a significant step toward reforming the way we spend American taxpayer dollars. While debating the ethics reform bill, Senators voted 98 to 0 in favor of my amendment requiring transparency for 100 percent of Member-requested earmarks. This was an early sign that Congress was going to change the way we do business here in Washington.

But since then, I am afraid my optimism has been tempered by a healthy dose of political reality. The ethics bill containing new Senate rules has been stalled, and its future enactment is anything but certain. In the meantime, the Senate has continued business as usual, as earmarking continues unfettered from transparency rules. The appropriators are soliciting earmarks. The WRDA bill is full of undisclosed earmarks, and none of the committees are complying with the anticorruption transparency requirements.

Upon notice that I was going to offer this bill again on the floor, the Democratic leadership of the Appropriations Committee just issued a press release

saying they were going to comply with these rules. That is really good news. So if the appropriators want to comply, there is no reason at all that we shouldn't enact this rule as a Senate rule.

Yesterday's Roll Call reported that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is advancing two pieces of legislation packed with billions of dollars worth of earmarks, but the committee is not asking Senators to certify that they have no financial interests in the projects, at least for now. In other words, the Senate is continuing to conduct its business in the old way, which was rejected by the American voters.

We cannot continue to wait. The Senate rules must be changed now if we are going to implement what the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished chairman, called an accountable, aboveboard, transparent process for funding decisions, and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of Congress.

I agree 100 percent. My proposal, S. Res. 123, creates a new Senate rule that requires public disclosure of the earmarks contained in bills passed by committee. This disclosure includes the name of the Member requesting the earmark, the name and address of the intended recipient of the earmark, the purpose of the earmark, and a certification that the requesting Member and his or her spouse have no financial interest in the requested earmark. These are simple transparency ideas that the American people need.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors to S. Res. 123: Senator Ensign, Senator McCain, Senator Enzi, Senator Martinez, and Senator McCaskill.

Mr. President, this resolution will immediately require all Members who request earmarks to certify in writing that they have no financial interests in the requested earmark.

Following the imprisonment of Congressman Duke Cunningham for selling earmarks for bribes, Americans need to know their elected officials are not using public office for private gain. This is simply information every Senator should be willing to provide, and I believe most are.

But it is beginning to look as if the new majority is not really interested in shining light on the earmarking process. Before we left for the Easter recess, I asked unanimous consent for the Senate to adopt S. Res. 123 so that we could enact this important rule immediately. The majority objected and said this proposal needed to go through the ``appropriate process.'' That is a sad excuse. This rule has already gone through the normal process. It was offered as an amendment on the floor, it was modified by the leadership of the Democratic Party, and it passed 98 to 0. This is a Senate rule, and the only thing left for us to do is actually enact it.

Let me just read a few quotes from the Democratic leadership when we worked out the language on this bill before. This includes a lot of Democratic language.

Majority leader Harry Reid said: In effect, we have combined the best ideas from both sides of the aisle, Democrat and Republican, to establish the strongest possible disclosure rules in this regard.

Majority whip Dick Durbin said: I am pleased with this bipartisan solution. I believe it reflects the intent of all on both sides of the aisle to make sure there is more disclosure. We have full agreement. The language has been vetted.

The bill I offer today as a Senate rule is exactly the language we passed 98 to 0.

The majority leader offered up his own excuse when he said his office was not notified in advance. In order to make sure that excuse is not used again, I sent a letter last week to the Democratic and Republican leaders notifying them of my intent to seek unanimous consent today to enact a Senate earmark disclosure rule--again, the one we have already passed 98 to 0.

But I understand the other side has come up with a third excuse. This time, they are going to say that enacting earmark disclosure requirements will dilute the effect of the lobbying and ethics reform bill. This is probably the weakest of all of their excuses. How does enacting an ethics reform provision dilute its effect? The only thing diluting ethics reform is our unwillingness to abide by this new rule. This excuse rings hollow because the majority did not bother to include this rule in their original bill. When we brought it to the floor, they tried to kill it.

I have tried to work in a bipartisan manner on this issue. I have been patient. But it has been over 80 days. The earmark process is continuing as usual, and all the American people are getting is excuses. It is time to enact this rule.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 123; further, that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 704 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, my amendment simply states that no funds in this act shall be used to make payments to spinach producers.

The House version of this bill includes $25 million for spinach growers, which all of us know has no place in this bill. Last week, the Senate spoke unanimously and we voted to block this spending from our budget process last year. I am asking all my colleagues to support the removal of this wasteful spending in this emergency war supplemental bill.

I think it is important this body be on record. This will be a matter of conference, and I think we all need to be on record showing we do not want it in the final bill.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the Senator. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that section 431, dealing with the tree assistance program, starting on page 150, line 13 and ending on page 151, line 15, violates rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

This section of the bill deals with the tree assistance program. It has no business being in a war supplemental. It is clearly legislating on an appropriations bill, and I believe it violates rule

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays and encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I object.

Mr. President, earlier this year the Senate worked together to change the way we appropriate money in Congress. One of the big showdowns that we had earlier in the year with the new majority was the discussion of earmarks and how we would disclose them and be more transparent to the American people. We worked hard. I introduced an amendment that would provide disclosure at the committee level and asked that the committee put any earmarks on the Internet and tell who offered the earmark and what it would go for, to make sure there is no conflict of interest.

Originally, the majority tried to table that motion, but once we worked together on language and worked out every detail, that amendment was agreed to 98 to 0. It was unanimous that we should stop earmarking the way we are today and use commonsense disclosure rules for America to know how we are spending its money.

Unfortunately, that amendment is part of the lobbying reform, ethics reform bill that has gone to conference with the House that apparently is not going to act on it at all. My proposal has been that we take what we passed in the Senate. We are beginning the appropriations process again. Unless we impose these rules on ourselves, rules that we all agreed on, we are going to go through the same thing we did last year where we put all these bills together, with thousands of earmarks, and at the end of the year some of us are going to be forced to try to stop the whole process, which, hopefully, we will not do.

What I would like to do today to fix this problem is take the amendment we have passed unanimously before and bring it up and pass it in the Senate as a Senate rule so we would operate under the rules that we have all agreed to during this appropriations season. The resolution number is 123, so fixing the current appropriations problem and earmark problem is as easy as 1, 2, 3.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration, and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 123; further, that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I am certainly disappointed. This is something to which we have agreed. We worked out the language with the majority. Certainly, we should be operating under the rules that we have agreed to during this appropriations season.

It is very unfortunate. I am very disappointed. I guess I have no choice, if the majority is going to object.

I yield and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, may I inquire, is amendment No. 513 next?

I have a minute to speak?

Yes.

Mr. President, this amendment is called the Debt Reduction Appropriation Account. Currently, while all of us, on both sides, are talking about the need to cut wasteful spending and try to trim the size of Government, our appropriations process does not allow for cutting spending and using it for debt reduction. This amendment establishes a debt reduction account for every appropriations bill so if during the debate of that appropriations bill we cut something in it, it will not be put back in the pot to be spent on something else. This account will be used for debt reduction, so if all of us have a debate about an item that should not be in a bill, it will go to debt reduction. It is a very simple debt reduction account for every appropriations bill.

No, it is not. There is no dollar amount although there is a dollar sign here. I will have to inquire how that ended up there, but this is not a requirement to put anything in the account. This is an account, a designated account. If an amount of money is actually cut from an appropriations bill, then it will reduce the 302(b) amount. That amount will effectively be in that account which goes to debt reduction.

Will the Senator yield for a clarification? His explanation, I am afraid, is not the amendment. We can still do what we normally do here, which is take money from one account and put it in another. But if a Senator wishes to reduce the amount of spending in a given area and does not designate it, there is an opportunity for it to go into a debt reduction account. So if we want to take money from any account and shift it to military or Defense, there is no prohibition in this amendment, so we do not change what we are able to do now. What we are not able to do now is, if we cut something and want that money to go to debt reduction--this amendment would simply allow, in the future, for us to designate it to an account rather than to additional spending.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 578.

Madam President, we have had several votes regarding the death tax today. Some have reduced it a little bit. We have gotten into a lot of details about who would win and who would lose.

My amendment would eliminate the death tax, would continue what we will achieve in 2010. This Congress voted to phase out the death tax. In 2010, it will be gone. My amendment will keep it that way throughout the budget process.

I believe, as many do, this is the most immoral and un-American tax we can possibly have in this country. Yesterday, I was distressed to hear colleagues on the other side were concerned that some children might inherit wealth from a family farm or business they didn't earn. Yet we say the Government earned it even though these businesses have already paid taxes on their profit, payroll, sales taxes, and property taxes throughout the person's life.

We need to eliminate this death tax. It is un-American. This is our opportunity to vote for it today.

The amendment has not been modified.

It is the same amendment.

I call up amendment No. 534, hoping I have the number right this time.

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

Mr. President, this amendment really is symbolic of a lot of the things we are trying to work on. What it does is it focuses on extraneous funding that is directed toward supplemental spending bills, supplemental funding for combat operation spending, which we expect to be coming over from the House.

There are dozens and dozens of nondefense-related earmarks on this bill. We had a number of amendments which we have agreed not to vote on, but just to vote on this one to make the point. We should not be adding $20 billion of extra spending on an emergency bill for our combat operations. We certainly should not be adding $25 million for spinach growers. This amendment would eliminate, as part of our budget process, the accepting of spending for spinach in relation to emergency supplemental spending for combat operations.

Mr. President, it is seldom in this Chamber that we have a chance to do something that is truly significant. This amendment about Social Security would allow us to do that. Both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat, for years have been saying we should not be spending Social Security on other things, and we should be saving it. But we have never done anything about it.

We have spent nearly $2 trillion in Social Security money on other things and have not saved one penny. My amendment allows for Congress to open the door and pave the way to stop spending Social Security funds and to save the money. Senator Conrad and others have talked about the importance of prefunding, or advance funding, our Social Security system. This amendment will open the door for us to do that. It does not prescribe how we will do it. It does not talk about how the funds will be invested. It says they will be taken off the table and saved.

We are not talking about ownership here, private accounts or the stock market. This is all open for future discussion. The point of the amendment is to open the door and do what we have talked about for years: stop spending Social Security on other things and save it for the retirees.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Senator Kyl's amendment. A few years ago, Congress did something that was very helpful to America. We voted to completely phase out the death tax. I think we have discovered in the debate that this is not about just rich people, it is about people who own small businesses and small farms. I had a number of examples to give, but we are short on time. There is one family that had a printing business for 97 years; they have already paid the death tax once. They are getting ready to pay it again. We have the opportunity to change that.

Now that we have voted to phase this out, it is not fair that in 2010, if a small business owner dies, that person can leave their family their entire business without any estate taxes; but if that same person died in 2011, they could lose up to half their estate. We don't need for this to happen. I certainly support Senator Kyl's compromise idea. But tomorrow I will call up amendment No. 576--I will not call it up today--which will completely eliminate the death tax for another 5 years. So that what happens in 2010 will continue to 2015. I hope all my colleagues will consider this and do the right thing for small businesses and farms.

I reserve the remainder of my time.