Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a European Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Administration Priorities for Europe in the 112th Congress.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 18, 2011, at 2:20 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2011, at 9:45 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 18, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Efficiency and Ensuring Justice in the Immigration Court System.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2011. The committee will meet in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building beginning at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The PRESIDEING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on readiness and management support

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2011, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science and Space of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Contributions of Space to National Imperatives.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 18, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of the Securitization Markets.''

Mr. President, yesterday this Chamber came together to unanimously confirm Ms. Arenda Wright Allen to serve as a district judge in Virginia. I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their vote. I am confident that we will give the same support to another excellent nominee from Virginia under consideration today.

I rise to speak in support Judge Michael Urbanski to serve as the next U.S. district judge for the Western District of Virginia.

Judge Urbanski would be appointed to a court that is known for its rigor and quality. It is a court that requires a highly effective judge that is sensitive to the details of each case. I think Judge Urbanski is perfect for this job.

He graduated from the College of William and Mary and the University of Virginia Law School. He also served as a law clerk for the Honorable James Turk, a district judge in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Following his clerkship, he worked in the private sector where he built experience in antitrust litigation, counseling and investigations, contract and business tort litigation and intellectual property litigation.

Since 2004, he has served as a magistrate judge in Roanoke, VA, where he has built strong connections to the community and a reputation as a fair and impartial judge.

I would be remiss not to mention the overwhelming support his candidacy received from the legal community in which he will serve. In addition, the Virginia State Bar, the Virginia Women Attorneys Association and the Salem/Roanoke County Bar Association ranked Judge Urbanski as ``highly qualified'' or ``most highly qualified.''

I again would like to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for moving Judge Urbanski's nomination through the Judiciary Committee so that we could consider him today. As I testified at the hearing, I look forward to casting my vote in support of Judge Urbanski's nomination and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time used in quorum calls during the debate on the Urbanski nomination be charged equally to both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Arenda Wright Allen to serve as the next U.S. district court judge for the Eastern District of Virginia.

I am very pleased to see that our leadership came together to move this nomination forward. I want to recognize Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley for holding the nomination hearing and reporting this nomination by unanimous consent.

Senator Webb and I had the privilege of interviewing several candidates to fill this vacancy on the bench. Ms. Wright Allen stood out for her exceptional qualifications and impressive record in the Norfolk community.

She has spent her entire legal career in public service, beginning with her service as a JAG officer in the Navy.

She also has the unique perspective of having served as both a prosecutor and a public defender. She spent 14 years serving as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and 1 year in the Western District of Virginia. Today, Ms. Wright Allen is a Federal public defender in Norfolk. Without a doubt, her extensive trial experience will go a long way on the bench.

While I was considering Ms. Wright Allen's record, I read several letters of support for her nomination. In addition, the Virginia State Bar ranked Ms. Wright Allen as ``highly qualified,'' and she came ``highly recommended'' by the Virginia Bar Association and the Virginia Women Attorneys Association.

I would also be remiss not to mention the historic nature of this nomination. Ms. Wright Allen would be the first African-American woman to serve as a Federal district court judge in Virginia. I know she will serve with distinction and make all Virginians proud.

Mr. President, President Obama nominated Ms. Wright Allen in January of this year. The time is now to confirm her nomination so that she can begin to serve the people in the Eastern District of Virginia.

I look forward to casting my vote in support of Ms. Wright Allen's nomination and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

I hope the Presiding Officer, who has spent extensive time as a great attorney general, lawyer, and attorney of great repute and respect, will be able to join us in this effort.

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

Yes, I will be happy to withdraw my request.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to once again touch on a subject that is important to me. I know it is very important to the Presiding Officer because the Commonwealth of Virginia and the great State of Maryland have a large number of Federal employees. As the Presiding Officer knows, this week we celebrate Public Service Recognition Week to honor public servants at all levels of government for their admirable patriotism and contributions to our country.

I wish to begin by commending our military intelligence professionals for the coordinated and painstaking work that was responsible for tracking down Osama bin Laden. There are a number of nameless, faceless Federal workers who have been investigating his whereabouts for more than a decade. I was proud to be in this Chamber with the Presiding Officer and colleagues from both sides of the aisle when, on Tuesday afternoon, this body recognized their work.

Our military and intelligence professionals are not the only ones on the front lines of keeping our country safe. Today, I rise to honor a resident of Reston, VA, Carl Pike, the Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Special Operations Division at the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. This is a photo of Carl and his whole team.

We have all seen reports in recent years detailing the violent and inhumane acts of the Mexican drug cartels that terrorize cities and control a significant percentage of the narcotics flowing into the United States. Mr. Pike is the head of a complex multiagency task force set up to catch many of these violent criminals and disrupt the flow of drugs. Last year, he and his team led the largest strike ever against La Familia, one of the most ruthless Mexican drug cartels and a major trafficker of methamphetamine in the United States. The strike, dubbed ``Project Coronado,'' was an operation that spanned 20 States, 50 cities, 2 countries, and multiple Federal agencies. Attorney General Eric Holder said the ``unprecedented, coordinated U.S. law enforcement action'' was a ``significant blow to La Familia's supply chain of illegal drugs, weapons and cash flowing between Mexico and the United States.''

The strike would not have been possible without Mr. Pike, as so many of his colleagues attest. One DEA Special Assistant Agent in Charge said:

He oversaw the broad interests of the law enforcement

community, displayed phenomenal negotiating and planning

skills, and facilitated collaboration between agencies and

international partners that often had competing interests.

In the end, Project Coronado led to the arrest of 1,200 associates of La Familia and the seizure of 1\1/2\ tons of methamphetamine, $32 million in cash, and 400 weapons. It truly was a significant achievement.

Carl Pike and his team should be recognized for removing dangerous drugs and criminals off our streets--something for which we can all be grateful.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Mr. Pike and his team as well as all those at the DEA for their excellence and service to our Nation.

I was also proud to be part of a group earlier today recognizing a number of Federal employees--nine from the Commonwealth of Virginia and many from the State of Maryland--who were part of a national competition that recognizes quality work of government workers.

As we see this week in broad display those military intelligence professionals in this most dramatic action against Osama bin Laden, as we see Mr. Pike and his team taking on drug cartels, and as we see the hundreds of thousands of other Federal workers who day-in and day-out, often without recognition, do the job of keeping our government operating and in many ways keeping our country safe, I hope my colleagues will join in saluting those efforts and recognize that this week, Public Service Recognition Week, is to honor all of our public servants.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise, once again, to continue the tradition started in the last Congress by my friend and colleague, the Senator from Delaware, Senator Kaufman, to recognize another great Federal employee.

I think this particular recognition is critically important, since last week this Congress came to the brink, unfortunately, of shutting down the Federal Government, which would have had a dramatic effect upon literally 800,000 Federal employees, many of whom toil tirelessly, oftentimes in the proverbial vineyards, trying to serve the American people. It is my hope that later today the House, and we in the Senate, will pass what perhaps is an imperfect compromise--and every compromise is a bit imperfect--that will continue the operations of this Federal Government through the balance of the fiscal year. It is appropriate that today we continue this tradition, where we single out for recognition on the floor of this Senate one of the Federal employees who continues to provide service to Americans.

The exemplary Federal worker I am referring to this week is Keith Prewitt, the Deputy Director and 27-year veteran of the U.S. Secret Service. Mr. Prewitt is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Secret Service, including its 6,700 employees, with a budget of about $1.5 billion.

Mr. Prewitt also oversees protection of the President and the Vice President of the United States, as well as visiting heads of State. He has an impressive resume that includes handling security during three Presidential campaigns, two White House details, and overseeing trips protecting American officials in more than 110 countries.

Mr. Prewitt was first drawn to a life of public service when he was in high school in the 1960s in Memphis, TN. He met a local Memphis police officer who had encouraged him to obey the city curfew, stay safe and out of trouble. Mr. Prewitt said this police officer inspired him to enter public service. Coincidentally, he went on to become a

Memphis police officer following his graduation from college.

In 1983, the Secret Service recruited Mr. Prewitt to serve as a special agent in the Memphis field office. Over the years, he rose through the ranks of the Service. He has served both on the frontlines and in supervisory positions, which have led him to his leadership role today.

Mr. Prewitt is regarded by his peers as one of the best in the field. He has been described as a man of high value and honor who views each day as a training day and is extremely dedicated to his work and loyal to the people who work with him.

One of his peers at the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers stated that Mr. Prewitt ``identifies challenges for the organization and seeks to change the status quo to make things better.'' His tireless efforts to improve the performance of the Secret Service have made him a true asset to the agency, the President, the Vice President, and to our country.

I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Keith Prewitt, a truly great civil servant, and all those in the U.S. Secret Service for their hard work and dedication to our Nation.

It is also my hope that we can conclude the budget for the balance of this fiscal year so we can give Mr. Prewitt, countless other Federal employees, and literally millions of Americans who depend upon the ongoing workings of the Federal Government, the confidence and respect they need by passing the balance of the continuing resolution for this year before we break for the Passover-Easter recess.

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

Will the Senator yield?

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor as well.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is a critically important issue, and I think a lot of us all want to speak. I just want to make sure--I have been presiding and waiting for some time as well. I hope we do not start rearranging all the rules here so we all get a fair chance to speak.

Mr. President, I wish I could say I was rising today to just debate some of the normal issues we talk about. Like most of my colleagues, probably, I rise today a bit embarrassed--not a bit but really embarrassed that we are here under these circumstances.

People across Virginia cannot understand why we can't get this done. I had the honor of serving as the Governor of Virginia. I am a Democrat, and I had a two-to-one Republican legislature. We got things done. We compromised. We found that common ground that now seems to be viewed as a bad place to be.

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Indiana that whatever number we agree on today, that doesn't take us very far when you have a $1.6 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion debt. If this debate is showing anything, it is that there is not going to be a way to get there unless we can frame this in a bipartisan way. I agree with the Senator from Indiana that we ought to take the framework of the Simpson-Bowles plan and put it forward. There are a group of Democrats and Republicans who are trying to do that, and a lot of other Members would like to be part of that as well.

We ought to take one lesson from this debate--that we are not going to solve the bigger problem unless we can start on a bipartisan basis. We have heard this morning back-and-forth about what is holding this up. I am not in the negotiating room. I wish I were. I don't know what is holding it up. I know, as somebody who has followed this debate pretty closely, that for the weeks of this discussion, it seems to have been focused on, can we at least take some small step toward attacking that deficit and cutting spending.

It seems to me from every bit of the press reports I have read--I would like to say I have an insider's view, and many of the Senators are trying to figure out what is going on, but from all the press reports, it seems that, until the last day or two, this has been about cuts, and there has actually been agreement on the number and size of this first step of cuts. But now we have these other issues. I think, as some of my colleagues have said, there will be time to debate those issues, but why in the heck would we roll the dice with not just 800,000 Federal employees but millions of Americans who rely on some level of continuity to have these extra social issue divisions right now?

I heard some of my colleagues say earlier that, well, we have to shut it down for a weekend, and that won't be too much of a problem. Well, you don't have to worry about the Federal employees.

Lord knows, anybody who puts a red herring--I appreciate Senators Hutchison and Casey making sure our troops are going to get paid. I am proud of that. Regardless, I think Senators and Congressmen should not be paid, either, if we shut down, and I promise not to take any salary if we are shut down. But just even for a weekend, what do you tell the motel owners, the restaurant workers, the private sector folks who are relying this weekend on people coming to Washington to see the cherry blossoms? You may say that is small ball, but that is people's lives-- not Federal workers but the private sector workers. What about the defense contractor who says that if we shut this down, he is going to lay off 70 folks starting next week? What about the shipbuilder in Norfolk who is living paycheck to paycheck and says they don't know whether they are going to see private sector dollars from their private sector employment, whether they are going to get paid or not? What do you say to our soldiers who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to try to spread democratic government if the greatest democracy in the world is going to shut down not over trillions of dollars' worth of differences but over some issue that may or may not have been introduced at the eleventh hour? I don't get it.

The notion somehow that this will send a good signal of fiscal discipline--I am proud, as my friend the Senator from Tennessee said, that we have spent more time in business careers than we have in our political lives. But what business hates the most is uncertainty. The markets hate uncertainty the most.

Portugal, yesterday or the day before, said they need a bailout from the European Central Bank. The notion that we are out of the woods in terms of a macrofinancial crisis is not true. The situation in Europe is very uncertain. The situation in the Middle East is obviously very uncertain. It would be the height of irresponsibility if we were to kind of once again rock the bond markets with the fact that the American Government would shut down over some extraneous issue. I don't get it.

The economists whom we have talked to have said that you can see up to a .2 percent decline in economic growth if we even shut down for a few hours. Frankly, it would end up costing us more than we save because shutting down operations and starting up operations, as any business leader or any government person who actually runs something knows, costs more money. People may say two-tenths of 1 percent, and we struggle for half a percent of growth here and there with all of these policies we try to promote--that is billions and hundreds of billions of dollars to our economy.

Just as we started to see a little bit of good news with the job numbers last month, just as we started to see the beginnings of an economic recovery, are we going to show that we can't even continue to operate the government for the next 6 months, and are we going to shut it down, at least based on press reports, on extraneous issues that don't have to do with deficit reduction?

If we can't get through this challenge, what happens when we move from the small-ball issues to the issues Senator Coats and my colleagues and friends, Senators Carper and Corker, all want to be part of--and the Presiding Officer--and how will we take on that $14 trillion debt, to which we add $4 billion every day that we fail to act, if we can't solve this problem in a way that focuses on making the cuts and letting the government continue to operate, not simply for the sake of 800,000 Federal workers but for countless millions in the private sector who depend upon that certainty, and move on to the question of how we find, I believe, the bipartisan solution that I hope and pray is at least around the framework of the Simpson-Bowles approach, which puts everything on the table--revenues and cuts--and recognize that we need to put the country back on the path of economic prosperity.

I hope the negotiators realize this is bigger than the small issues-- bigger than 73, 78, or whatever number they finally determine. We will send a signal by our actions today whether we are willing to then move forward to take on the much bigger issue, which is where we have to start.

I will close with this. If there is anything we have learned from this effort, it is that if we start with guns ablazing at each other, we are not going to be able to take on the real issue that confronts us--the national security crisis that Chairman Mullen has said is the single biggest threat to our long-term economic stability based upon the rising debt.

I yield the floor and hope and pray we will come to a solution.

Mr. President, I rise to urge adoption of the Coburn amendment. I believe the Coburn amendment actually adds teeth. We have a study here of duplicative programs from GAO. We have got to make sure we are, as we debate closing down the Federal Government, attacking real programs.

We ought to be able to save $5 billion of administrative duplication within the 82 programs that were given in this guideline in the GAO report. I would urge adoption of the Coburn amendment after the Inouye amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Coburn- Warner amendment. Refreshing everyone on the point I made just a couple moments ago, the GAO created a study that gives us a guidepost of where we can start eliminating some of the duplication and replication in Federal programs. This does not go to the heart of service delivery. It does go to anybody who has been a Governor or mayor in this body, who knows you can find, in moments of tough times, savings at the administrative level. This is a guideline. If we cannot find $5 billion in administrative savings from this guidepost, then this study will go, along with many others, to sit on a shelf.

So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Coburn-Warner amendment.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor again today to once more honor another great Federal employee.

I know the Presiding Officer and I, as well as some of our colleagues, recognize that in the State of New Mexico and the Commonwealth of Virginia and here in Washington, there are countless Federal employees who do great things in terms of public service and don't often get the recognition they deserve.

As we debate the balance of this year's budget and think about the incredible issues in front of us in terms of our debt and deficit-- issues that have to be confronted--we also sometimes have to remember that our actions or our failure to act has enormous consequences on the people who defend our country, protect our homeland, or make sure the basic operations of government work. It could be making sure our Federal parks are open or making sure the folks here in Washington who are Federal police are on the job. Sometimes our failure to agree or our failure to come together on particularly the predictability of the balance of this fiscal year has an effect on their lives.

That is not the subject of my purpose of rising today, but I do think it is important to bear that in mind as I continue the tradition that was started by Senator Kaufman last year of coming to the floor on a regular basis to honor Federal employees.

Time and again, I have seen how the skills and dedication of Federal workers have yielded groundbreaking benefits for our country. Today, I wish to highlight a Federal worker who is at the forefront of modern technology.

Joshua Bienfang is a physicist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He created a new method of transmitting encrypted messages in a 100-percent secure way by using quantum physics. I know the Presiding Officer is an expert in quantum physics. I, unfortunately, am not. But since there are so many business operations in the great State of New Mexico, I know he is very familiar with these subjects, but I still have a great deal to learn. My understanding is that in practical terms, this means that message interceptors will be unable to capture sensitive information--critically important to protecting the homeland.

Prior to Mr. Bienfang's breakthrough, quantum cryptography was thought to be a largely experimental means of transmission. But he was able to both secure messages and speed up their delivery. In fact, this technology has set world speed records in the quantum cryptographic field. I know the Presiding Officer probably knows what those speed records are. I don't know. His background in quantum physics makes him understand that, but I think it is a very remarkable achievement.

Without a doubt, Mr. Bienfang's discovery will be greatly important to our national security as well as commerce and equally important to the privacy of medical records. His work also demonstrates the diversity of our Federal workforce. While we may have our fair share of bureaucrats, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists and researchers doing cutting-edge work within the Federal Government and applying their intellect to benefit the American people.

I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating Joshua Bienfang as well as those at the National Institute of Standard and Technology on their success, which will no doubt aid Americans in the years to come.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period of the quorum calls between now and 2 p.m. be equally divided between both sides.

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

Mr. President, today I recognize Bland County, VA, which celebrates its sesquicentennial this month.

Bland County possesses the strong sense of community that makes Virginia an outstanding place to live and work. The county has a rich history, and is the only county in the Commonwealth that came into being during the Civil War.

Called ``the land between the tunnels'' because of its unique location, Bland County has more miles of the Appalachian Trail than any other county and contains more than 76,970 acres of the Jefferson National Forest. It is a place where people are willing and eager to work, and where the spirit of independence runs freely and fiercely along its ridges and through its valleys.

Bland County will commemorate the 150th anniversary of its founding with celebrations held on March 30, the date the county received its charter from the Commonwealth of Virginia. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Bland on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to the debate that has been going on in the Chamber about spending proposals and how we get through the balance of this current fiscal year and ensure that we do not

end up with a government shutdown and some of the repercussions that will come about from that.

I am blessed to represent a State that has not only a disproportionate share of Federal employees but also has a large number of private sector employees who rely upon predictability from the government. Unfortunately, with these lurchings from 2-week extensions, we are not providing that kind of predictability.

As you know, I strongly believe this is a moment in time for this body, colleagues in the House, and the President and others to come together regarding the question of how we no longer simply look at our debt and deficit on a piecemeal basis but we actually take on this issue on a comprehensive basis as so many, both elected officials and financial officials, continue to suggest. That came in earlier today in testimony from former Senator Alan Simpson and former Presidential Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles about the consequences of our failure to act if we do not get our comprehensive deficit and debt under control. It is a problem that is not going to get easier. Every day we fail to act we add $4 billion to our national debt.

Unfortunately, some of the proposals that are coming, particularly from the House at this point, the House budget plan, do nothing significant to address our long-term deficit and debt issues.

I travel around Virginia. Yesterday I was down with our colleague from Georgia, Senator Chambliss. We met with literally hundreds of business leaders from across central Virginia, and their message was clear: No more games, no more showmanship, get something done. That ``something'' they want done is a comprehensive approach to our Nation's fiscal challenges. That will mean, yes, cutting down on spending. That will mean, as well, making our Tax Code more efficient so American business can grow and compete.

It will also mean at the same time that part of that tax reform effort adds revenues because trying to deal with this problem by simply cutting or simply taxing will not be sufficient. Instead, the folks across Virginia, and I imagine across Montana as well, are saying: This is a moment in time we have to put everything on the table, and we have to ensure we actually provide a long-term solution.

One of the things that has been most frustrating as I listened to this current debate about CRs and what we are going to do for the balance of this fiscal year is that the debate has focused almost entirely, the spending cuts proposed from the House, on domestic discretionary spending. The $60-plus billion the House has celebrated all comes from that one narrow slice of the pie. Domestic discretionary spending accounts for less than 12 percent of our Federal spending. We cannot solve the $1.5 trillion current-year deficit or the over $14 trillion long-term debt without going beyond that 12 percent of our budget.

What should be particularly challenging to our colleagues is that every day we fail to act, we are seeing not only our debt grow, but we are seeing the amount of taxpayer dollars that we have to spend to pay off current interest rates--current interest payments continuing to rise. As a matter of fact, it is expected at some point over the next 3 or 4 years the amount that we pay out of every dollar collected, simply on interest, will exceed the 12 percent of our current domestic discretionary spending. So all of these current fights about these current cuts that are being proposed, all will be subsumed in interest payments we will all have to make as Americans; dollars that, quite candidly, do not go to build another school, to make another investment, to build another road; dollars that are not recycled in this country but increasingly are owned by folks abroad, increasingly by our bankers in Asia and a disproportionate number from China.

When we have the chance to vote on H.R. 1 this afternoon, I will be voting no. I will be voting no because I think this narrow focus on domestic discretionary spending only for cuts will not get us to the point we need to be in terms of long-term deficit reduction.

Let me again point out where I think the House proposal is so shortsighted. One of the things that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson said today: There is no silver bullet in this challenge we have in front of us. It is going to take significant spending cuts. It is going to take looking at the revenue side through the aspects of tax reform. But those two things, revenues and spending alone, still will not get us out of this problem. We have to get a third leg on the triangle, and the third leg on the triangle is a growing economy. How do we grow an economy in a place where America, while still the world's leading economy, does not drive the economy the way it did even 20 years ago?

We saw 20 years ago where the world would have to wait on America to get its financial act together. The world is not waiting now--China, India, Brazil, countries abroad are moving ahead. If we are going to remain competitive, we have to continue to invest smartly.

The President said we have to make sure we educate, we have to invest in our infrastructure, and we have to be able to out-innovate. That means targeted research and development. Unfortunately, the House proposal, which not only focuses on domestic discretionary to the exclusion of other areas of spending but also focuses these cuts on the remaining 6 or 7 months of our fiscal year, takes a disproportionate whack out of these key areas where we must maintain certain levels of investment if we are going to grow the economy to make sure the other cuts and other revenue raisers won't have to be as Draconian.

Let me give a couple of examples. I know the Presiding Officer comes from an energy-rich State. He also realizes we have to diversify our energy mix in this country and no longer be dependent upon foreign oil. One of the things that those of us who have hallowed the benefits of the Internet over the last 20-plus years are quick to point out is that the Internet came about because of initial government investment through ARPA. That led to the development of the networks that created the Internet that have spawned tremendous economic growth in this country.

I believe, and I think many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle believe, that we need a similar investment in the energy field. That was created, the RPE Program, at the Department of Energy. If we move forward with the House budget proposal, that will cut $1 billion out of the kind of basic research we need to make sure we have a full portfolio of domestic energy sources, renewable energy sources. I, for one, believe it also has to include conservation, nuclear, increased-- continued domestic oil and gas, coal--all these have to be part of the mix. But we have to do it in a smarter and cleaner way. Right now, at this point, to cut $1 billion out of that kind of basic next generation research and development, the same kind of research and development that in the IT field created the Internet, would be shortsighted. I think that is true in the minds of most business folks.

We have to get our health care costs under control. Part of getting our health care costs under control means continuing to unlock innovation. Perhaps one of the greatest growth fields of the next 20 years, and something I know the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has been working on in terms of his patent reform, is making sure in the life sciences area America continues to lead in terms of innovation.

Well, where does that innovation come from in terms of government dollars being leveraged four, five, six times? That comes from an investment in NIH. Unfortunately, the House budget proposal cuts $1.3 billion from NIH funding. Well, if you are in stage 2 or stage 3 of the next-generation cancer development drug, to have those kind of trials cut back, to have that kind of basic research cut back, not only in terms of American economic growth but the personal toll it could take on folks who are desperately waiting for solutions to a disease, I believe, is again not a good policy choice at this moment.

As we move forward as well, we have to make sure we outeducate our competitors. No one believes America's future is going to be based on low-wage labor; it is going to be based on a well-educated, innovative, and well-trained workforce.

I think one of the areas this President has not gotten the appropriate

credit for is the fact that he has advanced forward dramatic education reform within his proposals. Unfortunately, the House bill will cut $5 billion from the Department of Education and over $1 billion from the Head Start Program.

When we are trying to look at our kids competing against kids from India and China, does it make sense, if we are going to grow our economy, to slash education programs, if we are going to have that well-trained workforce?

So I do believe the House proposal is shortsighted. I believe it does not do anything to take on the structural deficit our country is facing. I will continue to work with the Presiding Officer and I think a growing number of Members from both sides of the aisle. Our suggestion is to go ahead and take the good work that was put forward by the Presidential debt and deficit commission as at least a starting point and put in place as consequences if we do not act; that we will not solve this issue--which, I believe, is the issue of the day, which as Chairman Mike Mullin said is the No. 1 national security issue for this country, to get our deficit and debt under control--unless we can broaden this debate from the 12 percent of domestic discretionary to include, yes, defense spending, entitlement spending, tax reform, trying to make sure everything is on the table.

The House approach does not do that. The House approach is shortsighted. The House approach will not allow us to grow our economy in a way we need. I will be voting against that proposal when it comes to the floor. But I look forward to working again with all my colleagues to make sure we get a true comprehensive deficit and debt reduction plan that this Congress can vote on and put into action.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask to speak for up to 8 minutes on the Democratic time.