Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was unable to vote on the motion to table the Paul amendment No. 2182 this morning due to a family commitment, but should I have been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to table the amendment.

SNAP was effective in helping over 786,157 individuals in my own Commonwealth of Virginia--including children and the elderly--have the resources necessary to purchase healthy food this past year. I believe that turning this program into a State block grant, as Senator Paul's amendment would have done, would not allow this program to continue to be as effective. SNAP is the bedrock of our national nutrition safety net, serving as a first line of defense against hunger, and during this last economic downturn has made sure that low-income families across the Commonwealth and the country are helped in putting food on the table each night.

Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend, the Senator from Kansas, for his leadership on this issue. This is something on which he and I spent a lot of time working, as have, I know, the Senators from Delaware, from Florida, and we are joined now by the Senator from Missouri as well. We are all new Senators.

We said before when we unveiled this we did not get the memo that we should take Presidential election years off. We still think the needs of our country ought to trump election-year politicking. We think this is one of those spaces where we can find that common ground.

I spent 20 years as an entrepreneur and a funder of startup businesses, and everything in my experience validates what Senator Moran has talked about. But, candidly, the facts show 80 percent of all of the new jobs created in America in the last 20 years came from startup businesses. They are not all tech businesses. I think of Under Armour, which is right up the road in Maryland, close to our friend from Delaware.

There are certain key things that every startup business needs: They need access to capital, they need access to talent, they need access to new ideas. We need to make sure we have a stable regulatory environment that is not overly burdensome in each way we move the ball in this legislation, both that we passed and that we are working on right now.

Senator Moran mentioned the JOBS Act, which looked at access to capital issues, how we can perhaps allow companies access to the public markets in a cleaner way. I want to commend the Presiding Officer as well. He took the lead on a whole new area of fundraising around crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, and using the tools of the Internet, in effect, democratizing the ability to raise capital.

In this legislation, Startup 2.0, we take on a series of other issues. One of the issues is the question of talent. Every country in the world competes for talent. We attract some of the best talent in the world to come to our world-class universities. Oftentimes, we then train them in science, technology, engineering, and math with graduate degrees. I wish we could fill all of those slots in American universities with native-born Americans. But we do not have enough.

Consequently, we train the best and brightest in the world, then send them home to start their businesses. I can tell you, in Virginia, where we are proud to have a vibrant high-tech community, an entrepreneurial community, literally one-third of all of our high-tech firms in Northern Virginia, the founders are first-generation Americans. If we had the same immigration policies 20 years ago that we have today, we would not have had that kind of explosive growth particularly all across America in the nineties from technology.

So I want to turn to my colleague, the Senator from Delaware, a State that punches above its weight, a small State but a State with great universities, a State which has a rich entrepreneurial climate as well, what got the Senator involved--I know he has a background in business as well--on this issue. I know the Senator wants to share as well some of the aspects of Startup 2.0.

I commend the Senator from Kansas for his comments. I am fond of Canada. My mom's family is from Canada. It is remarkable. Canada, over the last 3 years, has aggressively sought out worldwide talent.

I ask the Senator from Kansas whether he thinks it is good policy in what we do now--and, once again, I make very clear, this is about growing American jobs because we have more job openings in the advanced fields of science, technology, engineering, and math than there are American citizens applying for those jobs.

I ask the Senator from Kansas whether it would make sense--if we thought about this from a national security standpoint, would it make sense for us to take, for example, a Chinese lieutenant and send him to West Point and expose him to everything we have in terms of our national security ideas and then send him home?

I guess I ask the Senator whether he thought that would be good national security policy. Does it affect our current national immigration policy on an equally important front, in terms of job creation and economic activity?

No. I hope we can get a number of our colleagues to join us. This doesn't fall under a traditional Democratic versus Republican lexicon. This is more about future versus past. This is the future of global competition for talent, for ideas, and for capital. This is where job creation will come from. I look forward to working with the Senator and our other colleagues to make sure we get the support here and in the House and get this bill passed. I thank my friend, the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the bipartisan support for the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, S. 3187.

In addition to continuing the fee-based funding system for timely FDA reviews, S. 3187 also calls for strengthening early scientific dialogue and transparency, promotion of innovation through enhanced communications, and modernization of regulatory science.

These provisions, including enhancing dialog between the FDA and medical device, pharmaceutical, generic and biotechnology companies early in their new product development cycle, will facilitate a clearer understanding of the specific criteria the FDA will require in its review process and provide a succinct roadmap for successful product approval.

The ultimate goal is to reduce misunderstandings and expensive superfluous testing, with the hope of reducing the time and costs to bring new medical technologies safely to patients in need.

I want to commend the chairman of the HELP committee, my friend Senator Harkin, and the ranking member, Senator Enzi, who worked to find bipartisan consensus on these provisions.

By creating a more user friendly and accessible FDA, innovative U.S. companies built on the principle of American ingenuity, will be attracted and encouraged to develop new medical devices, technologies and pharmaceuticals.

With this new cooperation, together we will extend the quality of life for our citizens, reduce healthcare complexities and costs, create new U.S.-based jobs, and move this current national crisis to a financially manageable level for individuals, employers and tax payers.

For example, in my State of Virginia, medical and bioscience research and development is vibrant in our academic institutions and among our companies, both large and small. The biopharmaceutical companies employ nearly 77,000 workers in Virginia, both directly and indirectly. In the bioscience field alone employment has grown by 23 percent, compared to 6 percent total growth statewide and 3.5 percent across all sectors in the U.S.

We have a number of companies rushing to develop and market new products and technologies that are focused on improving healthcare delivery at a lower cost premium--companies like Engineered BioPharmaceuticals in Danville, VA, who is focused on repositioning current and future pharmaceutical therapeutics to be more effective at lower doses, with longer shelf-lives and better consumer compliance.

To help these companies, and encourage more innovation, I am glad to see that the FDA has committed to being more open with applicants about using more appropriate data, but also communicating why certain data is not able to be used. I look forward to working with stakeholders and the FDA in monitoring this issue.

One of the most exciting innovations in health care is related to mobile and health IT markets. Estimates indicate that the number of smartphone consumers using medical apps will grow to 500 million by 2015.

How these innovations are regulated matters a great deal. It is important to balance market creativity, with patient safety issues and the intended use of the medical software.

A number of agencies have jurisdiction over pieces of mobile medical applications, including FDA, Office of National Coordinator, ONC, and the Federal Communications Commission, FCC,--to properly regulate health information technology as well as address proper regulations of mobile medical applications.

I am pleased that language has been included in this bill which asks for the Secretary to work across the different agencies--the FDA, ONC, and FCC--to come up with guidance that makes sense. It also encourages an outside stakeholder group to be consulted.

I would like to thank my colleagues Senator Bennet, Senator Burr, Hatch and Coburn for their leadership on this as well.

I would also like to briefly acknowledge language in the FDA bill regarding the use of data from clinical trials conducted outside the United States. As many in industry will tell you, there are a number of countries around the world that have comparable safety standards as the

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

Madam President, I know we are on the motion to proceed to legislation dealing with the Ex-Im Bank. I rise today to urge my colleagues to proceed to this bill and to move forward and pass H.R. 2072, which would reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. We have a lot of debate on this floor on how we can grow our economy and grow jobs. One of the areas where there is agreement is that if America is going to be truly competitive in the 21st century, we have got to grow our export market.

Many American companies over the 20th century were blessed with the world's largest, most vibrant domestic market. But that market is maturing. On a going-forward basis, literally 95 percent of all the world's customer base lies outside the boundaries of the United States. So while maybe some of my colleagues may disagree with many of the President's goals, I think we would all agree that doubling of exports in a 5-year timeframe the President laid out at the beginning of his administration is an area where there is great agreement.

If we are going to do that, we have to use all the tools we have available because, unfortunately, right now American exports as a percentage of GDP rank behind Germany, Canada, China, Italy, France, the UK, India, Brazil. We are way down in the middle of the pack. As the Chair of the Banking Committee's International Trade and Financing Subcommittee, I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to get into the details to see how we can make the Export-Import Bank one of the tools we have to help American businesses grow their exports, grow that percentage of GDP that depends upon trade, grow that ability to reach that 95 percent of the customer base around the world, and to make sure that this tool, which has been a successful tool for close to 45 years, gets reauthorized but also is reauthorized in a way that brings more transparency and more accountability to this institution.

The bill we will have before us, hopefully later today, does that, because if we fail to act, the authorization for the Export-Import Bank expires at the end of this month, and this tool that is so important to growing exports, growing jobs, candidly will be lost.

The bill we will take up, hopefully later today or shortly, reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank for 3 years. While I would have preferred a longer extension and a higher limit, higher absolute total loan limit, I am glad the bill we will deal with increases the bank's lending limit from $100 billion to $140 billion.

Remember, our Export-Import Bank is so much smaller than any of our competitors'. Even taking the lending cap up to $140 billion will still mean we will pale in comparison to our competitors. These other nations are who we are competing with. I think it is important that we compare how our Export-Import Bank--which again in this last year made a profit, returned money to the taxpayers, and has been profitable year in and year out--how our institution compares with those of our competitors: Canada, our largest trading partner, the Canada that has a population size about one-tenth--actually smaller than one-tenth the size of the United States--has their equivalent Export-Import Bank three times the size of our Export-Import Bank.

Every day our Export-Import Bank and the American companies it supports face aggressive competition, as I mentioned, from China, Brazil, India, which all have very large export financing banks in their own right. In 2010 alone China did $45 billion in lending, two- thirds of that to a single company, lending that was supported by their exporting financing operations, while our domestic Export-Import Bank did just $13 billion in total. So China, close to over 3 times, supporting their institutions, one of our largest competitors, versus our support for our American industry at one-third the size.

That same year, Brazil, a country much smaller than ours, provided $18 billion in export finance; Germany, more than $22 billion; France, more than $17 billion; all much more than what we do. Each of them only has, as I mentioned, in total about one-fifth of our population.

So why would we, if we all agree that growing trade, growing exports, trying to access that 95 percent of the customer base that would then support American companies that are going to hire American workers, why would we unilaterally disarm and remove this tool from our toolbox as some in this Chamber have suggested?

Ironically, because in our country, we do not provide, I believe, adequate export financing, many American companies have gone to foreign export agencies, the result being if they get that foreign export support, oftentimes the price of that foreign export support means that subcontractors to those American companies then have to come from those respective countries, whether it is Canada, Brazil, India, et cetera, again costing American jobs.

I think this is a commonsense tool. It is a tool that has had a solid track record. It is a tool that has never cost the American taxpayers a dime. It is one that needs our immediate attention. Again, I hope we will get a large, overwhelming bipartisan majority of Senators who will reauthorize the Export-Import Bank, will reauthorize it at this $140 billion level, will reauthorize it with the new transparency provisions that I was proud to add to this legislation, will reauthorize it with some of the new requirements in which the Export-Import Bank puts together a more comprehensive business plan, all additions that I worked on with my colleagues and added to this legislation.

That is, again, one more example where we can demonstrate to the American people we can come and work together, trying to spur that kind of job growth and export growth we are all looking for.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCASKILL.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I rise to add my voice in support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, of which I am proud to say I am a cosponsor.

In Virginia, this act has doubled the resources available for prevention and intervention of sexual violence in communities and on campus. The funding provides crisis services in nearly every locality in Virginia. Funds have helped develop State databases like the protective order registry in the Virginia Criminal Information Network, VCIN, and the I-CAN system housed with the Virginia Supreme Court. These databases have helped improve responses across the Commonwealth to sexual and domestic violence.

Some startling Virginia domestic and sexual violence incidence statistics highlight just how critical this legislation is to anyone in my State and across the country who may find themselves in need of help.

Virginia has seen a 12 percent increase over the past 2 years in the number of men, women and children staying in domestic violence emergency shelters on an average night.

Nearly 1 million women and more than 600,000 men in Virginia have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner.

According to the State's medical examiner, one in three homicides in Virginia is due to family or intimate partner violence.

As these statistics show, the services authorized through VAWA continue to be a necessity. It is important that we continue to support access to these vital services that will provide significant benefits to those most in need of assistance.

For the Violence Against Women Act to truly work as intended, we must have effective accountability. Particularly in times of tight budgets, it is important to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. It is critically important that we continue to advance effective, comprehensive policies that will provide appropriate preventive and supportive services that many in my State, as well as across the country, will benefit from.

The accountability measures included in this bill are patterned after proposals offered by my Republican colleagues for other grant programs, and these accountability measures have been tailored to VAWA to make sure that funds are efficiently spent and effectively monitored.

The bill authorizes the Department of Justice's inspector general to audit grantees to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. It gives grantees a reasonable amount of time to correct any problems that were not solved during the audit process, but imposes severe penalties on grantees that refuse to address the problems identified by the inspector general.

Rather than Congress mandating a set number of audits, the Office of Inspector General will have the ability to set the appropriate number. This will give the experts in the inspector general's office the ability to more effectively perform important oversight. The Department of Justice has also taken significant steps to improve monitoring of VAWA grant awards by updating grant monitoring policies and incorporating accounting training for all grantees.

The bill has taken the important step of holding the Department of Justice accountable when using Federal funds to host or support conferences. These new accountability provisions are an integral piece in this process and a meaningful additional check to ensure the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars for these important programs.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

Madam President, I ask to call up amendment No. 2071. There is an agreed-upon substitute text at the desk.

I thank Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins for their help on this amendment. It is a simple amendment. One of the goals of this process is to encourage retirement expected for 100,000 members of the Postal Service. Unfortunately, now OPM has an over 50,000-person backlog of retirement claims. This is unacceptable. We still have a paper processing process. This amendment would require the

Postal Service to report on a regular basis, as well as OPM, on the status of these retirement processing claims and hopefully speed up this process and also compare it to the forms of other agencies. This is completely unacceptable to folks who are retiring, waiting sometimes up to a full year to get their retirement benefits. I thank the chairman and the ranking member and ask for acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the chairman and Senator Collins for their work on this bill. I know it has caused a great deal of interest and consternation, but the numbers are overwhelming that without this kind of legislation, the fate of our Postal Service would be in great jeopardy. I commend both the chairman and ranking member for their very good work. I intend to support the legislation. I know they have had to make some hard choices, but I think they are putting the Postal Service back on the path to sustainability, and I commend their leadership.

I also thank them both for an amendment they have been kind enough to include in, I believe, a revised bill, a managers' package, that takes on a related issue that affects not only Postal Service employees but all Federal employees; that is, the absolutely dreadful performance-- which is starting to be corrected, but the absolutely dreadful performance that OPM and agencies of the government, including the Postal Service, have done in terms of making sure our Federal employees receive their retirement benefits in a timely manner.

The Presiding Officer and I, both from the Commonwealth of Virginia, have 130,000 Federal employees in Virginia. There are 140,000 Federal employees across the river in Maryland. I am happy Senator Mikulski has cosponsored the amendment I am going to talk about in a few moments.

I want to explain the problem we are facing and why I am asking the Senate to adopt this amendment during the consideration of this bill to reform the postal system.

Over the past year, I and other Members in both parties have received hundreds of requests for assistance from Federal retirees who have experienced significant delays in obtaining their full retirement benefits--delays that oftentimes exceed 12 months, sometimes as much as 18 months and more. In the meantime, these Federal retirees--and no one questions that they deserve and should receive these benefits, but since there is slow processing and antiquated technology, they are not getting these earned retirement benefits. These retirees face inordinate hardships trying to pay their bills and survive on partial payments made while their retirement paperwork moves through the system.

Remarkably, in 2012, our whole retirement system is still a paper- based system. OPM also relies upon every other Federal agency, such as the post office and others where a Federal employee works, to assemble and submit the retiree's paperwork in a timely and efficient manner. But as we have seen with the occasional snapshots that have been taken, some agencies literally have a 30- to 50-percent error rate in submitting the background material for the retiree so OPM can appropriately process the paperwork.

Part of the goal of this postal reform, I know, is going to be to encourage some of the voluntary retirements in the postal system--again why this amendment is so timely. Meanwhile, the retirees wait and wait for benefits; benefits they have earned, and, unfortunately, benefits they cannot get access to. We continue to hear from recent Federal retirees who literally spend 8 or 10 hours a day trying to get through on the customer service line to find out where their benefits are.

I would like to share a few examples of what we are hearing. We recently heard from a retired colonel from Williamsburg, VA, who wrote, ``I retired in March 2011 and at the time of this writing OPM has still not figured out my full retirement pay . . . my savings are getting low.''

From here in Northern Virginia, in Dumfries, VA, we heard from a retiree who said:

I have been subjected to a severe financial hardship

because of not getting my full benefits. I was recently told

that the bank is repossessing my auto because I cannot afford

to make the payments.

He cannot make the payments because this retiree was not getting her benefits. She was existing on partial benefits until OPM could deal with the processing.

From Warrenton:

I am seeking assistance with obtaining my husband's health

insurance which was canceled unexpectedly. He worked for DOD.

I notified OPM with the appropriate forms and a copy of his

death certificate, all of which was apparently lost by OPM. I

tried to obtain new forms but was told it would take up to 6

weeks. I am 80 years old and need my health insurance now. My

husband and I were married for 60 years.

This is unacceptable. This is not the way we ought to be running this important part of our Federal Government. In January of 2012, OPM's retirement backlog exceeded 62,000 cases--62,000 Federal employees, retirees--who were waiting to get their benefits. Again, let me point out, many of these retirees were waiting for more than 1 year.

We saw huge backlogs in disability claims, death benefits, and quarterly benefits. By OPM's own account, it takes almost 700 days, nearly 2 years, to process some death benefits. Recently, after my meetings with OPM and other members of the delegation, OPM has made some limited progress in reversing the tide of retirement claims. The retirement backlog is now 52,000 claims. OPM has hired new staff and is starting to modernize its outdated processing, but it is clear more needs to be done.

I wish to also compliment Senator Akaka, who was kind enough to let me join an oversight hearing on this matter back in February of this year. What I heard there worried me. So I sent my staff to OPM's retirement processing facility last month to see the problem up close. Unfortunately, my staff's reports confirmed my worst fears. The current process is largely manual, cumbersome, and contributes to significant delays and potential errors. We have been told the newest OPM technology is 12 years old. That is pretty remarkable. It is simply no longer feasible to expect that manual data entry for retirement and benefits claims make sense when we have technology that can dramatically lower processing time and increase accuracy.

OPM needs to modernize its technology in the long run. But in 2012, they need to at least start taking some short-term steps. It is unacceptable that they rely upon paper processing in 2012. OPM, as I mentioned, has made some progress. But ultimately they still want to remain committed to a paper processing system. That does not make any sense. The kicker is this problem is not new. As indicated by this press story, Federal agencies routinely point the finger of blame at OPM for causing these delays, while OPM points the finger back at the individual agencies for not getting the information to OPM in a timely manner.

One might think this story was written in the last few weeks. There have actually been stories written in the Post in the last few weeks about this subject. But the day I am quoting from on this story is actually May 9, 1988. That is 24 years ago. Ronald Reagan was President when this was written, and we have had four Presidents since then. Yet OPM continues to offer the same excuses and the same kind of back-and- forth finger-pointing between agencies. We have seen this show before. It needs to be taken off the air.

What are we going to do with this amendment and how does this affect trying to move the ball forward? My amendment will do three things. First, it requires OPM to report to Congress, GAO, and the public about the timeliness and accuracy of Postal Service claims, requiring OPM to compare the Postal Service with the performance of all other Federal agencies. So we need to figure out, because we do not know at this point--we have a 52,000-claim backlog--whether the backlog is because the agency the employee worked for did not get the information to OPM in a timely manner or whether OPM has not processed this.

This amendment will require the Postal Service to assess how it is doing, getting this information to OPM, and compare that with the performance of other Federal agencies. This will allow us to see which Federal agencies have the best and worst track records in submitting paperwork to OPM. The snapshot we saw a little bit earlier this year at the hearing in February showed that a number of agencies had literally a 30- to 50-percent error rate in submitting their retirement paperwork to OPM.

With close to 100,000 potential new retirees--actually a much larger number, but the effect of this bill may urge the voluntary retirement of 100,000 postal workers to retirement--OPM is going to get hit by a tsunami.

Second, the report will also require OPM to provide a claims aging report. We need to know how long retirement applications have been pending at OPM. By the way, we do not have any of that information right now for the 52,000 cases that are currently pending--no basic aging report.

Third, the amendment will require OPM to at least move forward a little bit in modernizing one piece of their technology, so OPM can at least receive some electronic payroll data from the Postal Service system.

Now, 551,000 people work for the Postal Service right now. If this legislation passes, which I hope it will, and we see the voluntary retirement of 100,000 postal workers over the coming months and years, that is a new tsunami of retirement benefits claims that are going to need to be processed by OPM.

The bottom line is this: OPM, while they are trying to make some progress and I commend Director Berry for some of the actions he has taken, needs to be urged along and we need to get more data about how they do, not only with the Postal Service but with all Federal agencies. My amendment will move forward in that direction.

The Warner-Mikulski amendment focuses on these key reporting requirements and mandates more transparency so we can untangle the chokepoints. I believe we need to honor the dedication and commitment of our Federal workforce, including our postal workers, in making sure that when they do retire, they get their Federal retiree benefits in a timely and efficient manner. Again, I wish to thank the chair and the ranking member for their hard work on this postal reform bill. I look forward to supporting it. I also hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this Warner-Mikulski

amendment that while tangential to the overall reform of the Postal Service, making sure these retirees get their benefits in a timely manner is something on which we should all agree.

I yield the floor.

I want to thank the chair and the ranking member for working with me on this amendment to get it appropriately modified. This an area that I think there is broad bipartisan consensus, that we need to make sure--whether postal workers or other workers in the Federal system--that when they choose to retire, they can expect those retirement benefits in a timely manner.

I wish to again commend the chair and the ranking member for the fact that putting in place this very reasonable plan that is going to encourage the voluntary retirements of that approximate 18 percent of the workforce--109,000 I believe it amounts to--is going to be a lot easier to make that sell if those postal workers can then expect to receive their retirement benefits in a timely manner. I think if they are hearing the current scuttlebutt that they may have to wait 12 to 18 months to get their retirement benefits, it becomes a much harder effort for the Postmaster and the management of the Postal System to make--even if they got the right incentives in place--to kind of get over that hump if they have to wait a long time.

So I very much thank again the chair and ranking member, Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins, for their support, and I think trying to shine a light, not only on the Postal System but vis-a-vis how other Federal agencies are doing will be important. I look forward to working with them. I know they both focused on this issue in the past. I hope to lend my assistance to make sure we get this fixed.

Madam President, I want to join my colleagues in today's well-deserved accolades for my friend, Barbara Mikulski.

The other day, as often happens to most of us here, I found myself temporarily waylaid by an informal scrum of reporters in one of the Capitol hallways. And, unknown to me, I was blocking Senator Mikulski's path. She made me aware of that fact in her distinctive and typically endearing way: ``Hey, Tall and Lanky--make way for Short and Stocky!'' she said.

But it is not just that humor and good nature that makes Barbara Mikulski such a great colleague and friend. As a resident and colleague from an adjoining State, I respect all she has done at the local level, in the U.S. House and now in the Senate, to move the National Capital Region forward in terms of the regional ties that join together this special region where we live and work.

You see, Virginia and Maryland share more than just a common border. Our two States are home to hundreds of thousands of hard-working and under-appreciated Federal workers and retirees. Our States share safety and funding concerns related to Metro. We each have a shared responsibility in our stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland and Virginia also share world-class NASA facilities on the Eastern Shore.

As a friend, I appreciate her leadership role in helping this first- time legislator--and recovering former Governor--make the sometimes difficult adjustment to this body. As the father of three daughters, I am grateful for the doors Senator Mikulski has opened--and sometimes kicked-open--for young women.

Senator Mikulski truly is a force of nature. She is tough, focused and extremely effective. And as these testimonials demonstrate, Senator Mikulski is widely respected and loved by current and former members of this body.

I am pleased to join these colleagues in thanking Senator Mikulski for her service, her leadership and her friendship.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak on some of the issues that were just addressed by the Republican leader; that is, the legislation we will hopefully turn to next about creating jobs.

There are a lot of occasions when legislation comes to the floor of this Senate where I, similar to many Members, have a view on it, and we kind of weigh in on our positions. But this legislation, as it comes forward, is something for which I have more than just an intellectual or political or philosophical viewpoint. This legislation actually involves the business I was in for nearly 20 years.

I was proud of the fact that starting in the early 1980s--up until the time I was elected Governor of Virginia--I was involved, originally as an angel investor and then as a venture capitalist, in helping start companies across this country. I am proud to have been involved as a venture capitalist in funding almost 70 companies--those companies that grew to now employ tens of thousands of Americans.

As the Acting President pro tempore and some of the folks realize, a lot of those companies I was involved with were involved in telecommunications. I was the cofounder of Nextel, although I cannot seem to turn my cell phone off at the appropriate times. But I think that background gave me some sense of what it means to find a management team to find the capital and get a company started, to allow it to grow, create jobs, create economic prosperity.

This issue around capital formation, encouraging startups, encouraging entrepreneurs, is an issue on which we ought to be able to come together.

I see my good friend, the Senator from Kansas, who I know is going to speak in a few moments after I am finished. He and I have worked together on legislation called the Startup Act that has been endorsed by tech councils across the country, has been endorsed by and builds upon the work of the Kauffman Foundation, has been endorsed by and builds upon the work of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

This ought to be an area where we can find common ground. Some of the ideas we are going to be discussing in this legislation are not only ideas Senator Moran and I have worked on but I know Senator Coons and Senator Rubio and Senator Toomey and Senator Schumer have worked on, also Senator Tester, Senator Merkley, and Senator Brown. There is a list, actually, in terms of the sponsors or cosponsors on a number of these bills--a number not in the single digits but literally in the dozens, probably in excess of 20 and, for the most part, almost every one of these pieces of legislation is bipartisan.

Why do we need to do this? Because if we look where the jobs have been created in America over the last 20 years, for the most part we find, unfortunately, the job growth from companies that are in the Fortune 1000 has been flat, if not slightly negative.

So while we applaud and support America's largest businesses because of increased productivity, because of globalization, those are not the companies adding jobs.

While every Member of the Senate, when they stand, stands and applauds small business--and I know my colleagues on the floor support small business, the traditional small businesses--the butcher shop, the retailer, the hardware store--there has not been much job growth amongst those companies as well.

So where have the jobs come from? The jobs have come from startup businesses, the kinds of businesses where an entrepreneur tries to scrape up a little bit of capital and takes an idea to market. Nearly 80 percent, according to the Kauffman Foundation, of all the new jobs created in America in the last 20 years have come from these firms.

We oftentimes think of these firms as technology firms. Many of them are--the Facebooks and Googles. But there are also the companies that span the reach of all kinds of different areas--the Lululemons, in terms of clothing stores, or Under Armour, a company that is in Maryland. These are the kinds of companies we need to do more to support in their growth, particularly right now when our economy is still struggling.

So what are we trying to do in this legislation? To my mind, there are three or four areas these bills need to address.

First of all, we need to make it easier for these startup companies to raise capital. Over the last decade, a lot of the traditional sources of capital raising have actually diminished, particularly since the financial crisis. The number of venture capital firms that exist, that fund companies, has actually decreased.

The ability for a company to go public--for which, perhaps, we got a little too excessive in the late 1990s, when we saw dot.com companies rush to go public and then that dot.com bubble burst and those companies failed--but that access to the public markets has been seriously constrained, partially because of added regulations, partially because of added reporting requirements, and partially because there has been a recognition that going public may not have been the right route for all these companies.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

The result is, many of these startup companies end up having to sell to a larger company, and many of the ideas and many of the job-creation opportunities are then constrained.

We need to make it easier for these companies to access capital. Some of the ideas that are going to be proposed in the legislation will do that. Some of the reforms to reg A, reg D--trying to look at raising the number of investors a startup company can have before they have to report--all are sensible, appropriate incentives to help these startup companies get going.

I understand the very important requirements put in place by the so- called Sarbanes-Oxley legislation a few years back, but the cost of going public for startup companies now, on average, is $3 million to $4 million. Those costs are not costs that many of these startup companies can absorb. So some of the sensible reforms that have been proposed by Senator Toomey and Senator Schumer that I have been a proud cosponsor on, on a so-called on-ramp for startup companies, I think make sense as well.

There are also other tools we can use to help startup companies as they try to access capital.

We have seen a dramatic transformation of the Internet over the last 20 years. Every business, every part of our life has been changed. There is now the ability to use the Internet as a way for small investors to get the same kind of deals that up to this point only select investors have gotten that have been customers of some of the best known investment banking firms, where we can now use the power of the Internet, through a term called crowdfunding. There has to be appropriate investor restraints under this and investor protections, but crowdfunding using the Internet is another source of capital.

I hope that will be included in the legislation we are looking at, and I wish to commend Senator Bennet and Senator Merkley and Senator Brown for working hard on that.

But there are other pieces of this legislation we have to take on if we are going to compete and win in this global competition for talent and ideas and have these jobs created in America. That is why I was so proud to work with Senator Moran in our startup legislation that says attracting capital is one part of making a company successful. Another part of making a company successful is winning the worldwide competition for talent. Unfortunately, time and again what we are doing in this country is losing that competition for the best talent. There are literally tens of thousands of jobs that are going unfilled right now because we do not have enough American-born scientists, engineers, and mathematicians with graduate degrees.

Because we have the world's best system of higher education, we train many of the world's best and brightest. But with our current immigration policies, we train those folks at the Virginia Techs, the University of New Mexicos, get them that Ph.D. in engineering, and then we send them home when they have an opportunity to get a job in this country. We cannot talk to a tech company anywhere in America that says we are losing the competition for talent.

So what does our legislation do? We actually do what tech firms have called for for years, which is, in effect, to staple that green card to those individuals who get not a bachelor's degree but a master's or Ph.D. in the science, technology, engineering or math field, the so- called STEM fields, if they have a job opportunity in America.

We allow that intellectual capital and talent to actually reside and help create jobs. What we do as well is create a new category--in effect, an entrepreneur's visa. We have a very narrow category within our immigration policies right now that allows certain immigrants who want to come, invest in other companies in this country, and hire Americans, to get access to a visa. We would expand that category.

So if an individual can demonstrate that they have raised capital and are willing to hire a number of Americans, why do we not allow them to start that job in America rather than going somewhere else to do it? So I believe we put

in place small changes to our immigration policies that will, again, allow us to compete.

Our startup legislation looks at how we can encourage our universities because we need capital, we need talent, but we also need the intellectual capital, and that comes from ideas. Our universities across this country do a good job of doing basic research. Our universities do not do as good a job as they could and should in moving those ideas from the laboratory into the marketplace.

I know my time is about to expire so I will wrap up. What we do in our legislation as well is we do not add additional funding, but we take a small sliver, fifteenth-tenths of 1 percent of our existing research and development dollars, and actually use that as incentive funds to get ideas out of the laboratory into commercialization.

So I know we are going to move to this legislation shortly. I do believe there were a number of Members, particularly newer Members, who have been working on this legislation across the aisle. That was an attempt to put together a broad bipartisan bill. I am not sure that is going to come to pass on the Senate floor, unfortunately, because on this issue I do agree with the Republican leader. This should not be Republican or Democratic legislation. This should be a bipartisan piece of legislation that would actually encourage startups to get the capital, to get the talent, to get the ideas, so we can actually make sure we move forward on job creation.

The data is clear. The jobs over the last 20 years have come from these kinds of startup companies, the kind I was proud to help fund in my 20 years of identifying funding and working on these startup ventures. We need to do all we can to support them. We need to move this legislation as quickly as possible. My hope is that we can move beyond the rather narrowly drawn capital formation legislation that we are going to look at and look at these other areas around crowdfunding, around appropriate visa policies, around commercialization of intellectual capital to move these forward.

I am going to yield the floor for my friend and colleague, someone who has been a leader on this issue as well, someone whom I know has been criss-crossing the country--over the last couple of days, recently, he came back from Austin, TX, where he was celebrated as a startup guru--and that is my friend, the Senator from Kansas. Let me also acknowledge the Senator from South Dakota who has been a leader, particularly on the regulation D reform.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will follow up on the comments of the Senator from Texas on an issue that we will be voting on this afternoon, I understand, regarding the construction of the so-called Keystone Pipeline.

I have been somewhat frustrated by the debate around this issue. Unfortunately, I think we are going to be confronted again with kind of a bifurcated choice that doesn't get to the possibility of us actually putting into place a comprehensive energy policy that will remove this Nation's dependence upon foreign oil and start to look at the ability over the longer haul to bring down the price at the pump and make sure we are truly a participant in the opportunities of a glowing, multifaceted energy policy going forward.

I support the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. I believe we need to have an energy policy that has an ``all-of-the-above'' approach. I do believe there are appropriate regulatory reviews that need to be made. I also, frankly, think any construction of the Keystone Pipeline should take into consideration the very serious environmental considerations that particularly affect the State of Nebraska, and there will need to be a route for this pipeline that would avoid that potential environmental damage.

However, because of the way this process is being laid out, I will not be voting for the Keystone amendment today because by making this a straight up-or-down issue, without taking advantage of the opportunity to put together the beginnings of an energy package, we are missing a great opportunity.

As I have mentioned, if we are truly serious about energy security, and if we are truly serious about reducing our dependence upon foreign oil, I believe we need an energy policy that has an ``all-of-the- above'' approach. Yes, that means more domestic oil and gas. But it means when we have an opportunity in an issue of controversy such as this regarding Keystone, we could have taken this opportunity to include a rational approach with appropriate environmental reviews to get to, I believe, a positive answer on Keystone but also link that with other energy policies that would make sense.

I know the Presiding Officer has in his State a number of wind facilities and solar facilities. Unfortunately, those areas that need, as well, to be part of our energy mix--the tax treatment that allows those projects to move forward have been put in limbo because of the failure of Congress to extend the so-called tax provisions, or tax extenders, on a going-forward basis. Wind projects all across the country--in fact, I was visiting with some folks right before coming to the floor, and they have a variety of wind projects that are stopped dead in their tracks because of the uncertainty regarding whether Congress will act.

The ability to get the Keystone Pipeline passed, in combination with passing, as well, the extension of these appropriate renewable energy tax credits could have built the kind of bipartisan consensus around energy policy that would be needed. I also believe the lowest hanging fruit in terms of how we save and can have a rational energy policy in this country means a much greater involvement with energy conservation. There is a very strong bipartisan energy conservation bill, the Shaheen-Portman bill, that could have been included in this package as well.

I think if we are going to get serious about reducing our dependence upon foreign oil, if we are going to make sure we give the American taxpayers a vision that in the future we are going to see the ability to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil that results in higher gas prices, we actually could have put together around this Keystone proposal a true compromise, a bipartisan consensus that would have included construction of Keystone, with the appropriate environmental reviews, with making sure those key areas of Nebraska are protected, with the inclusion of the energy tax cuts and provisions that we do on an annual basis, and that we continue to allow wind, solar, and other renewable energy production to continue, and a meaningful energy conservation bill--the Shaheen-Portman bill.

I believe those three policies linked together would have resulted in a vote that would have been overwhelmingly bipartisan and would have been a demonstration to the American people that we are going to get out of our respective fox holes and put the beginnings of a truly comprehensive energy policy in place.

Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to have that happen. We are going to have a straight up-or-down vote on Keystone that dismisses any of the appropriate review processes and doesn't bring in the issues around the so-called energy tax extenders or the conservation bipartisan legislation that was put together by Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman. Instead of getting a more comprehensive vote this afternoon, which I believe would have passed overwhelmingly, we are going to end up with one more vote that will, for the most part, break down on partisan lines. I am disappointed in that.

I do believe we need construction of the Keystone Pipeline. I believe we need meaningful energy conservation legislation and meaningful tax policy that promotes renewable energy

around solar, wind, and biomass. Unfortunately, we are going to miss the opportunity today to send that strong signal of a comprehensive ``all-of-the-above'' energy policy that would actually move this Nation forward.

I know my friend, the Senator from Texas, is no longer here. I would have loved to have been able to support a comprehensive package that would have allowed the Keystone effort to move forward in conjunction with these other efforts. Unfortunately, that will not happen. Perhaps later in the year we will have the ability to cobble together something that includes more of an ``all-of-the-above'' energy policy and we can actually get about the business of making sure we have a national energy policy.

But there is no silver bullet. We were going to need to make sure we take advantage of all of the energy resources we have in this country-- oil, gas, offshore oil, nuclear, and appropriate revenue sharing with States--such as my State of Virginia--and energy conservation and renewables as well. The sooner we get to that debate, the sooner we can build the bipartisan coalitions that will allow that kind of policy to move forward.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas and my good friend from Tennessee for initiating this effort. Again, as a relatively new Senator--in fact, I jumped the line. I apologize. As the Presiding Officer would support, it is only in the interest of family values; if I were not getting to my wife's birthday in about 30 minutes, I would be able to give more extended remarks.

As a Senator who has only had the opportunity to serve in this body for 3 years, I hear my more senior colleagues talk about the old days or the days when the Senate took up in an orderly fashion the business of the people and debated it in vigorous fashion but came to conclusion on issues that confronted the country. We have done some of that in the years when I came in with the Presiding Officer. There were issues of major importance that we have debated. But too often in recent times, we have not had the favor of those kinds of debates.

While we can disagree about many of the grave issues of the day, as a former businessperson, I know there is nothing more important than to give predictability to the enterprise we call the Federal Government. The way we do that is by passing spending bills--the appropriations bills--where hard choices are made about which programs to fund, which programs not to fund.

Like my friend the Senator from Tennessee and both Senators from Arkansas and the Presiding Officer, I have enormous concerns about our debt and deficit. We are going to have to make hard choices. But if we are going to make those choices, we need a full and vigorous debate, a debate where amendments are offered, where procedural tactics are not used to slow that debate, and where the will of the Senate is enacted.

I understand that the majority leader and the Republican leader have reached some accommodation to try to start a new way of business, and the first step of that business should be having us, in a fair and orderly process, debate appropriations bills, make those hard choices, and move on.

I again thank my colleagues for their courtesy but particularly thank the Senator from Tennessee and the senior Senator from Arkansas for bringing us together on the floor to lend our voices. This might even be like a volunteer fire department where Members of the Senate can rush down on an issue of importance. I heard the call that there were Senators down here talking on this important issue, and I am glad to add my voice to it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I know we have been switching back and forth. As someone who has the opportunity to preside more often than not on these kind of days, I know they are anxious to speak as well. I will only take a couple moments. I appreciate their courtesy.

A little earlier today we passed a conference report that extended the payroll tax cut. While I am glad the payroll tax cut was extended, I voted against that conference report because, unfortunately, we did not pay for that tax cut. I believe we could have found ways to pay for it--a surcharge on millionaires, tying this to a means test so it could have been more coordinated. But also in that action for those parts of the legislation that we passed that we did pay for, things such as unemployment benefits, we once again targeted a group that I think for too many in Congress becomes the payer of first resort, not payer of last resort; that is, our Federal employees.

Over the last year and a half or so, I have continued a tradition that was started by a colleague, Senator Ted Kaufman from Delaware, where on an occasional basis I come down and recognize the service of Federal employees who, too often, again as we have seen in recent debates, receive the brunt of lots of comments when in reality they are good folks who keep the operations of our Government working, who patrol our streets, catch the terrorists, and in some cases just recently I recognized a Federal employee who actually helps keep the Senate operating on a regular basis.

As we think about how we get our debt and deficit under control and pay for the programs that we will continue to initiate, we need to make sure we have a shared burden approach, where we look both to programs that have outlived their usefulness and the revenue side. Yes, I know Federal employees will make their contribution as well, but as we have seen from their pay freeze, from the threat of repeated furloughs over the last year and a half, and now adding to their pension contribution for new Federal employees, that burden is not always shared with all.

Tribute to Joseph Lawrence

I am continuing the tradition of recognizing great Federal employees.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to honor a recently retired great federal employee, Joseph Lawrence. He most recently served as the director of transition in the Office of Naval Research within the Department of Defense.

During his time there, he oversaw a $1 billion research and development portfolio responsible for developing science and technology solutions to problems discovered during war game exercises conducted by the Marine Corps and the Navy.

For example, Mr. Lawrence oversaw the development and delivery of a new type of dressing that can be applied to a battlefield wound to prevent bleeding during transportation to a hospital.

This innovation is now found in every Marine's individual first aid kit, as well as products used by U.S. Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies.

Other innovations include a system that protects tactical wheeled vehicles against rocket-propelled grenade and a crane that better transfers containers between ships.

In December 2011, Mr. Lawrence retired after 45 year of service, which began at the U.S. Naval Research lab while he was in college. He has played an important role in the protection of our country and the well-being of our troops.

Dedicated civil servants such as Mr. Lawrence are the lifeblood of the federal government. I admire their patriotism which drives them in their daily work. Too often, their service to the success of the United States does not receive the proper recognition it deserves.

This has been recently exemplified in the systemic problems associated with processing necessary paperwork prior to the disbursement of retirement benefits to all federal employees. Earlier this month, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee investigated problems within the Office of Personnel Management surrounding the processing of retirement and survivor benefits. Too many of our recently retired federal employees--the current estimate is more than 62,000 people--are waiting for more than year to receive earned retirement benefits.

We are not holding up our end of the bargain with people who commit to public service to their country. To make matters worse, this is not the first time the Congress and OPM recognized the current processing system is broken. I am committed to helping resolve the issue with the current OPM system. But, frankly, the current OPM system, which doesn't have very good technology--when they have invested in technology resources, they have actually come up with goose eggs--is now currently processing these retirement requests with old-fashioned paper and pencil. It makes no sense.

As a matter of fact, there are a number of agencies--the Department of State and others--as they send over the retirement information on an employee to OPM, over 50 percent of the information they send over in terms of the case is not complete. So not only is this a problem at OPM, but this is a problem in terms of OPM being able to enforce the other 88 Federal agencies actually doing their job.

I believe we need to tackle and fix this problem to ensure that retired Federal employees, such as Mr. Lawrence, who have faithfully served this great Nation, are able to enter retirement and receive that for which they worked so hard.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Mr. Lawrence for the excellent work he has done, and I hope they will join me in making sure that when Federal employees retire, they get their retirement benefits in a timely and efficient manner.

I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for their courtesy.

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 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, let me rise today to speak about the conference report that it appears we will be voting on tomorrow regarding the issues of the payroll tax, unemployment benefits, and the so-called doc fix. Let me first of all acknowledge that I know that many of my colleagues have worked long hours on the payroll tax deal that was apparently reached late last night.

I have been briefed on pieces of this deal and I've also seen many of the press reports that have described this deal as a new sign of bipartisanship. As a new Member of the Senate, I know, like the Presiding Officer, we believe that we do our best work here in Congress when we can have bipartisan solutions, when we can find ways to reach common ground.

All of those factors make it doubly difficult for me to now rise and say I will be voting against the conference report when it comes before this body tomorrow.

Now, let me acknowledge on the front end that I think there are worthy reasons in this recovering economy we have got right now, it makes some sense to maintain some form of payroll tax holiday for a limited period of time.

I know the Presiding Officer feels that one of the most important issues our country confronts right now--I would say the most important issue and the one that overhangs everything else we debate here--is our inability to come to grips with our debt and deficit.

I know, as we try to nurture this growing recovery, one of the ways we take on that debt and deficit is by having a growing economy.

But I also believe it is terribly important that we show progress on this issue. Our national debt now exceeds $15 trillion. Every day that we fail to act, we add $4 billion to that total. None of this becomes self-correcting. It will not correct itself until and unless we act.

I, for one, believe there is no action this body could take that would be more stimulative to our economy, that would be a better jobs program, that would do more to restore the trust of the business community and the public than to show bipartisan collaboration and cooperation on a long-term debt and deficit deal. So let me share with my colleagues the five reasons I will be voting against the conference report tomorrow.

First and foremost, the payroll tax cut that has been proposed isn't being paid for. It will add $100 billion to the debt.

Second, I think the compromise that has been put together turns some of our traditional policies on their head. By taking this action of saying tax cuts somehow don't have to be paid for, we are advancing a policy I believe will come back to haunt us later this year when the Bush tax cuts expire.

As a matter of fact, while I have only been a Member of this body for 3 years, I know it has been a tradition that in moments of economic crisis, the Congress will sometimes extend unemployment benefits, particularly for those States that have been hardest hit. In those moments of crisis, the unemployment benefits sometimes go unpaid for. Well, in the compromise in this conference report, we turn that policy on its head in that there was a requirement to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits but no requirement to pay for the $100 billion of additional debt taken on by the payroll tax cut.

I know in this body, as we have had debates about debt and deficits and economics, we have discussed the economic theories of a whole host of thinkers and economists--John Maynard Keynes, Frederick Von Hayek, Milton Friedman, Paul Krugman. I somehow feel as though this conference report we will be voting on tomorrow may reflect the thinking of a more obscure individual, but someone I recall as a child growing up, and that was Wimpy, who was a cartoon character--Popeye's hungry pal. Wimpy used to always say, ``I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.''

Well, it seems on this economic policy we are talking about today, of deferring payment for this payroll tax policy, that Wimpy once again has won out.

Let me cite the third reason I will be voting against the conference report tomorrow. As I acknowledged at the beginning of my comments, I believe extension of the payroll tax holiday makes sense in this recovery, but it just needs to be paid for. So I could have very easily supported a number of the proposals put forward by my colleagues on the Democratic side, including a 1-percent increase of the taxes on those of us who make more than $1 million a year--a defined benefit for the defined pay-for.

If we couldn't breach the gap on that, I could have looked at means- testing the payroll tax holiday.

If we are trying to make sure these dollars get into the economy as quickly as possible over this coming year, then clearly a payroll tax holiday for folks who make less than $150,000 a year or $250,000 a year or $500,000 a year or $1 million or less a year--it didn't make sense to say that regardless of one's income. This payroll tax holiday--going to folks like me, who are doing pretty well--is not going to have a stimulative effect, I just don't think economic theory bears that out. So if we had paid for this or put some restraints on it, I would have been happy to support this conference report.

The fourth reason I can't support the conference report is because I am concerned this payroll tax holiday--which goes into the Social Security trust fund, is supposed to end at the end of this year. But we have no metrics placed on it. It scares me greatly that we will approach the end of the year and there will be some other reason it needs to be extended again.

I believe we should have put in place a requirement that this payroll tax holiday would start to ratchet back if we continued to see growth in the economy--perhaps ratcheted back one-third if we had seen GDP growth for the next 3 months or employment growth for the next 3 months, ratcheted back another one-third, ratcheted back another one- third--so we wouldn't have the cliff effect that is being proposed at the end of the year, again, a cliff effect that will come at the same time as the end of the Bush tax cuts, the imposition of the so-called $1.2 trillion sequester cuts, and the proverbial train wreck that is already being talked about.

So while I believe this payroll tax holiday is important, the price, the fact we are not paying for it, the fact we have put no restrictions or parameters around it and the fact that there's no guarantee it will actually expire because we have no metrics of how much economic progress we need to have before it expires are reasons I will be voting no.

Let me raise one other concern I have about the conference report. This

is one more example of particularly our colleagues in the House saying the first place they go for any pay-for for any project seems to be our Federal workers--the same Federal workers, close to 2 million strong, who keep our streets safe, make sure we get those Social Security checks, try to take out terrorists, drug dealers, you name it. They are the same Federal workers who have had their pay frozen for the last 2 years and who have had to endure the prospects of two or three potential shutdowns over the last year and a half. To say we are going to come back to the well time after time on this group I don't think is fair or right.

As someone who has looked at the Federal pay and benefits, when we get to that issue of a comprehensive tax reform, entitlement reform, big deficit deal, all these items will need to be reviewed. But the notion the first place to come back to for any pay-for is our Federal employees, to me, doesn't seem fair nor does it seem right. So for these five reasons, I will reluctantly be voting against the conference report tomorrow. I believe it was, again, in the context of the debt and deficit particularly, Will Rogers who said: When you find yourself in a hole and you want to get out, stop digging. Well, in some small way, by voting no tomorrow, I hope I will send a signal that I--and I hope others will join me--will stop digging.

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

I will.

Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Presiding Officer for taking a few moments so I can make my statement. I also thank my friend, the Senator from Illinois, for his comments.