Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I came to the floor tonight to talk about the FDA reauthorization bill that is before the Senate. I was sorry we could not get it to a vote today. I am hopeful that tomorrow we will be able to because from my perspective, as someone who has only been here for a few years, the process, the committee process that led to the creation of this bill, is a model for how this town ought to be working.

The conversation we have had for so many months and even years has felt decoupled from the conversations I have been having in my townhall meetings and across the country about the challenges we need to address. This gap has been miles apart. But in this piece of legislation, I think we have actually found something responsive to patients, responsive to consumers, and responsive to the bioscience industry that is so important to my State and so many States across the country.

Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Enzi deserve enormous credit for running an excellent process that has enabled this Senator and others on the committee to be responsive to what our constituents say they want, which is a modern FDA with improved patient safety and innovation. We have also had committee members who were interested in rolling up their sleeves and doing hard work together irrespective of which party they were in. We have been able to work through a markup with virtually no partisanship.

This has been a uniquely fine process, which is why we have had such great momentum toward a full extension in what I call the Land of Flickering Lights. The standard of success around here has become: Keep the government running for 1 more month, keep this extension in place for 2 more months. We actually have on the Senate floor a rational and responsible bill that is a 5-year extension of the Food and Drug Administration authority.

Tonight I only want to talk about two aspects of the bill. There are a number we worked on, but tonight I spare you with the rest. In 2010 I introduced a bill called the Drug Safety and Accountability Act. Chairman Harkin

and Ranking Member Enzi took notice, and we were able to form a working group to address serious problems in the FDA's statutory authority.

FDA laws that are supposed to protect our domestic drug supply were created in 1938 and desperately needed to be updated for the 21st century. Back then the lines of commerce were based on 48 States. Now we live in an era where over 80 percent of the active ingredients in our pharmaceuticals and our drug supply are being manufactured abroad. Couple that with the FDA laws that force them to inspect American facilities every 2 years but they have no mandates on how often they inspect facilities overseas. The GAO has found that FDA can only keep pace with inspecting the most high-risk overseas facilities, the places where our moms and dads are getting their pharmaceuticals for our children, once every 9 years.

So patients taking their pills have no idea whether the ingredients in their drugs were made in China or India or if they were ever inspected. Our American manufacturers are operating on an uneven playing field. They have to expect a surprise FDA inspection every 2 years on average here and make sure they are following all of their good manufacturing practices, when their foreign counterparts do not have to worry about FDA visiting them for a decade, if ever, because they can delay or refuse FDA inspection because they are overseas.

Patient groups and the industry came together to try to change that, and this bill does change all of that. It would implement a risk-based inspection schedule for both foreign and domestic manufacturing sites. It would make sure that drug manufacturers know who is in their supply chain every step of the way. And for the first time, if you are abroad and you refuse or delay inspection without a fair reason, the FDA can refuse to let your product into this country.

These are all the steps American families already think we have in place to protect them. I cannot tell you how many townhalls I have had where people have been shocked to learn that the products they have in their medicine cabinets have never been inspected by anyone. This will change that. It is a thoughtful, commonsense approach I think all of the constituents to this debate support.

So we need to make sure that happens. I also want to talk about something called track and trace. American families also want to know what happens to their pills, pills that can mean the difference between life and death, once they leave the manufacturer, enter the country and change hands several times. Right now we can know a lot more from a bar code on a gallon of milk than from a bar code on medication. That seems absurd to people at home.

I take a moment again to thank the Chair and ranking member for their commitment to working together to meet the challenge of developing a uniform traceability system. This is something that has been worked on for over a decade in this town, and we are finally this close to making it the law of the land.

I thank, in particular, my colleague, Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina, for being such a great partner in this work. FDA, the HELP Committee staff, Pew, and other stakeholders across the supply chain have been meeting for weeks with my staff and with Senator Burr's staff, all in good faith. Our goal is to finalize a plan after we wrap up this Senate bill.

Let me talk about another very exciting part of this bill. If we pass this bill, for the first time the FDA is going to be able to apply 21st-century science to the approval of drugs, particularly drugs that are breakthrough medications, drugs that we know will work in one subset of populations even if they might not work so well in another.

This is very important to cancer patients all across the United States who are looking to access these breakthrough therapies. So from the standpoint of driving an industry in this country that in my own State has a median salary of roughly $74,000, and from the point of view of patient health and protecting our supply chain, this FDA reauthorization is a must pass.

I thank the members of the committee and especially the chairman and the ranking member for establishing a model for how this Senate should operate.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet.) The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, I rise to highlight for my colleagues how Congress now has a critical opportunity to support the competitiveness and prosperity of American agriculture. We need to move the farm bill forward. It is fitting that this week marks the 150th anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Federal Department solely dedicated to meeting the needs of America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.

Agriculture is at the heart of Colorado's history and cultural fabric. It also continues to be one of our most significant economic drivers. At a time when many sectors are struggling to find growth, Colorado farmers and ranchers are more productive than ever, finding innovative ways to harness growing consumer demand for agricultural products both at home and in overseas markets.

As evidence of this success, agriculture is the one sector of the U.S. economy that boasts a trade surplus. During the first 2 months of 2012, Colorado exports of agricultural products grew by 25 percent over the same period in 2011, led by an 80-percent increase in dairy exports. This good news comes on the heels of several consecutive years of double-digit increases in Colorado agriculture exports.

The USDA is part of this success story. Colorado farmers and ranchers work closely with local USDA employees to support the productivity of their operations and to maintain the health of their land and water resources. It is a vital partnership. And with expiration looming on many programs important to Colorado agriculture, I can think of no better way to commemorate the USDA's 150th anniversary than by reauthorizing the farm bill.

Over the last several months, the Senate and House committees on agriculture have come together to craft a bipartisan farm bill that not only provides America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities with the tools they need to keep growing but also makes a significant contribution toward important national deficit reduction goals. The farm bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee makes very significant progress in simplification, accountability, and taxpayer savings.

Using feedback I received from over 20 listening sessions statewide, I worked to secure Colorado's top farm bill priorities. In particular, I am encouraged by the farm bill's revamped conservation title. It maintains vital authorities for land and water protection while also consolidating over 20 existing conservation programs to provide producers and landowners with much needed flexibility.

I also strongly support efforts by the Senate Agriculture Committee to strengthen the Federal crop insurance program. Time and time again, Colorado farmers have told me that affordable crop insurance is the single most important risk management tool the USDA can provide to producers for addressing today's economic and ecological challenges.

According to Colorado State University, agriculture contributes $40 billion toward the State economy annually. Of course, the benefits of a strong farm economy extend far beyond the farm. It means stronger energy, transportation, and retail sectors. It also allows us to provide food assistance to the most vulnerable populations at home and in countries suffering from famine due to drought and conflict.

In short, reauthorizing the farm bill is one the most important things this Congress can do to provide farmers and ranchers with the certainty they need to plan for the future. It will help to keep rural America growing and thriving, and it will help to invigorate an economy just now getting back on its feet. Acting on this legislation during USDA's 150th year would make the accomplishment even better.

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

Madam President, during the worst recession since the Great Depression, which we are now fortunately coming out of, the highest the unemployment rate we ever got, even at the depths of that recession, for people with a college degree was 4.5 percent. We saw unemployment rates of 18 percent, 20 percent for certain groups of people--4.5 percent if one is a college graduate. It seems to me, first of all, that is an incredible stress test of the value of a college degree in this 21st century in which we are living. We ought to be making it easier, not harder, for students to go to college. However, as we know, interest rates on Federal student loans are scheduled to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1, unless Congress can get out of its own way and do what is right. For the life of me, I don't know why we

cannot come to an agreement. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue.

The cost of college has increased 550 percent since 1985. Two-thirds of students in this country rely on loans to afford college. In the past decade, average student loan debt has increased by more than 25 percent.

This, by the way, is not a function of people not doing the right thing. It is a function of the fact that median family income has continued to decline in this country for the first time in this country's history, while the cost of college has escalated like crazy. If this increase goes through, it would add thousands of dollars of debt to the more than 166,000 Coloradans who currently receive Federal student loans. Increasing the cost of loans for students already struggling to repay their loans harms both individual students and our fragile economy.

When I visited the University of Colorado at Denver just last month, I heard firsthand from students about how important low-interest rates are to that ability to afford college. Many of the students I heard from were worried their student loan debt would prevent them from achieving their career goals or buying a house or making other decisions they are confronting. In Colorado, the average student graduates with more than $23,500 in debt. Just in the last hour, Jeremiah shared the following story with me on Facebook. This is less than an hour ago. He wrote:

I am studying geography and environmental science with an

emphasis on urban studies and planning at the University of

Colorado, Denver. I am the first of my family to attend

college and 100 percent of my schooling is paid for by grants

and student loans. I worry about the interest rate hike that

is bound to happen this summer, and with the economy not in

full recovery I worry even more about securing a job after

graduation and how to afford repayment of my loans,

especially if interest rates are to increase.

As the Presiding Officer probably knows, in her State and my State, college attendance is actually at a record high because there are young people all over this country--certainly in my State--who have sought refuge on our university campuses from an economy that doesn't have jobs for them--which is a great place for them to be. It is a great investment in them and a great investment in our future. But for Jeremiah and thousands of others, millions of other students just like them, we are threatening, through our inaction, to actually drive up the cost of college when that is where they need to be. That is the reason why, in the last 2 weeks, more than 1,300 Coloradans have written to my office to demand Congress act to prevent the student loan interest rate from doubling.

Here is one letter I received from Kim Haas, who is from Granby, CO. She wrote:

While I try to keep informed, I don't generally make a

point to contact my representatives. On the issue of student

loan rates doubling, I had to speak up.

My husband and I live in rural Colorado. I have been

working toward becoming a professional counselor. Because of

our remote location, I have done most of this online while

staying home with my son. This takes a lot of self-motivation

and time management skills. It also means taking on a lot of

debt. Please take the actions necessary to prevent my rates

from doubling. It is imperative to our financial, vocational,

and life success.

Her life success. I suspect that most of these students are not all that interested in what party affiliation they are in. I think if they were here on this floor, which is empty today, they could use some Colorado common sense to actually get this done. In the Senate and in Washington today we are facing a filibuster even though we know in the end we are going to find a way to do what is right and keep these interest rates from rising.

Also, our Facebook page is continually updated. This is from Phil Townsend who wrote in--and I thought this was a pressing question about what we are focused on today.

Here is how Phil put it:

If you had a loan that would take you a decade to pay off

even if you lived as cheap as possible and only ate ramen

noodles, would you want its rates doubled?

This is real life for the people we represent, and we should get this sorted out.

Once again, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together and give our students all across the country the security they need to pursue their education. For them this isn't a game. For the people who came to the University of Colorado at Denver a month ago and shared their thoughts with me, this isn't a game. This is real life. It is their lives. It is their futures. They are relying on us to sort this out and get it done, and we should.

Madam President, I want to take the opportunity to discuss the importance of reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. Last month while in Colorado I had an opportunity to visit innovative businesses such as Coolerado, which creates energy-efficient air conditioners, Sandhill Scientific, which manufactures medical devices, and Leitner-Poma, which builds gondolas for ski resorts. They are building the gondola that is being installed in Vail this year to mark Vail's 50th anniversary. It was fun to see those American jobs being created for that great American industry.

All of these companies rely on financing options from the Export- Import Bank to help them compete in the international marketplace. In fact, while visiting Coolerado, I actually saw an 18-wheel truck back up to the loading dock at Coolerado to load a bunch of their devices to be shipped to Europe as a consequence of the work they had done with the Ex-Im Bank.

These are manufacturing jobs right here in the United States, stamped ``Made in America'' on the outside of these devices, and we have been unable to get this through the Senate. Coolerado used credit insurance from the Export-Import Bank to help enter the international market.

As we emerge from the worst recession since the Great Depression, we should look for more opportunities to support the next Coolerado, Sandhill Scientific, or Leitner-Poma. Instead, we have been in this prolonged debate about the very existence of the bank, and now we are weeks away from the expiration of the bank's charter.

I am quite sure there is not a single one of our international competitors around the world that is engaged in this debate. In fact, they are engaged in absolutely the reverse, which is the question of how to create more exports for their domestic industries, and we should be doing the same.

As we look to strengthen and to reverse that curve I talked about earlier of median family income falling and to see rising wages again in this country and create more jobs, we should be looking for opportunities to increase exports at small businesses like the ones I saw in Colorado.

We face a profound structural issue in the economy today in this country. As I said on the Senate floor before, our gross domestic product is now higher than it was before we went into this recession, and productivity has been going off like a skyrocket since the early 1990s. As we responded to competition from China and India, the use of technology to make businesses more efficient and the recession itself drove productivity through the roof because firms had to figure out how to get through these difficult times with fewer people.

Median family income has fallen, and we have 23 or 24 million people in this economy who are either unemployed or underemployed. Wage growth and job growth--for the first time in the country's history--has decoupled from GDP growth. That happened during our last recovery under the previous administration. I make this statement not as a partisan observation; that is just the time that it happened. We saw economic growth, but we didn't see wage growth and we didn't see job growth. Now I fear we are seeing the same sort of trend in our economy.

There are two important solutions. One I mentioned earlier, which is that education is vitally important because if people are educated, they are more likely to get a job in this 21st-century economy. Remember, the worst that the unemployment rate ever got for people with a college degree was 4.5 percent.

The other part of that equation is innovation. It is businesses that start tomorrow, next week, and the week after that are actually going to create jobs that are going to lift wages. This is one of the reasons I have been so glad to work with the Presiding Officer as we think of new ways of approaching regulations at the FDA to ask the question: Are we driving bioscience in the United

States or are we driving venture capital offshore to look for other opportunities? We should be up day and night thinking about this in the Senate because that is how we are going to bring an alignment back between the economic growth the economists tell us we are having and the job growth and the wage growth the people at home want to see.

There is a lot of talk in this Chamber about winners and losers and how the government shouldn't pick winners and losers--we hear that a lot here--as if the current Tax Code isn't full of choices that have already been made about winners and losers. A lot of those choices that have been made have been made for the benefit of incumbents--not here but incumbent enterprises. However, it is the innovators that we are leaving behind.

As we think about comprehensive tax reform, which I hope we get to sooner rather than later, I think on every one of these questions we should be asking ourselves: Is this credit or is this incentive or is this inducement more or less likely to drive job growth in the United States, to drive incomes up in the United States, or to drive exports from the United States? If the answer to that is no, we should stop doing it. This has to be more thoughtful than a fight between one narrow interest and another narrow interest. I think the American people are demanding that, and we should respond.

In the short term, the work in front of us now is to get this Export- Import Bank bill to the floor, to get it voted on, and to pass it as they did in the House of Representatives yesterday.

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 rise to talk about the importance of the passage of the Violence Against Women Act. As a husband and as a father of three young daughters, this issue is especially personal to me. This piece of legislation provides extremely valuable Federal resources to help victims of domestic and sexual violence rebuild their lives. Whether it comes in the form of an emergency shelter, legal assistance, a crisis hotline or advocacy, this bill provides the assistance that victims need, especially in the most vulnerable time.

Domestic violence, spousal abuse, and sexual assaults represent enormous public policy challenges. Because of

the very personal nature of these crimes, it can be extremely difficult for victims to come forward to get the help they need, let alone call out those who have committed these heinous crimes. But since this bill was first enacted, the annual incidence of domestic violence continues to drop. Additionally, domestic violence reporting has dramatically increased and victims are receiving lifesaving assistance to help them move forward with their lives.

In my home State of Colorado, we continue to make great progress reducing the number of domestic and sexual assaults that occur, but we must continue to do more.

In 2010, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control published a report which estimated that 451,000 women in Colorado were victims of rape in their lifetime. It also estimated that 897,000 Colorado women were victims of sexual violence other than rape in their lifetime. That same report said 505,000 men had been victims of sexual violence in their lifetime. These statistics are staggering in my view, and they make the case for why we had to pass this bill and continue to strengthen the programs that provide lifesaving services.

The Violence Against Women Act also includes invaluable programs to coordinate community efforts to respond to incidents of domestic and sexual violence by training police officers, judges, and other members of the criminal justice system. The legal system in our country is already stretched so thin. The resources provided by this bill will help law enforcement and court officials track down and bring to justice those who commit these crimes.

In my opinion, we can't do enough to get these criminals off the streets. For instance, we need to ensure that we support protection and prevention services such as training judges and police officers on how to identify and respond to abusive situations. We can significantly decrease domestic violence fatalities and the number of displaced families if we have better trained officers in our legal system and health and human services arena.

Finally, I wish to thank Chairman Leahy for his tireless efforts to move this critical piece of legislation forward, as well as Senators Murray and Klobuchar for their continued leadership on behalf of women and children all across the Nation. With a big bipartisan vote today in the Senate, we came together to make sure the Violence Against Women Act was passed.

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2047 and ask unanimous consent that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf of amendment No. 2047, which I have cosponsored with Senator Blunt. I deeply appreciate his leadership.

This bipartisan amendment would allow for a nonpaid advocate to represent communities facing a closure or a consolidation. Advocates would represent their communities' interests throughout closure proceedings and would work with the Postal Service to identify alternative methods to maintain service standards. Advocates would have access to documents, data, and reports related to the proposed closure. Advocates would also have authority to appeal a final decision on closure to the Postal Regulatory Commission if there was a concern it would hurt service standards.

Finally, the amendment would allow the strategic commission already contained within this bill to develop interagency agreements so that post offices could provide additional government services, such as the issuance of Social Security cards and hunting and fishing licenses, similar to what it already does for passports.

In 2011, to take 1 year, the Postal Service accepted 5.6 million passport applications that generated $182 million in revenue. This amendment has

the potential to cut government costs, improve access, and help keep post offices open by supplementing revenue streams in a way that is particularly helpful to our rural communities. I hope the Senate could adopt this amendment.

I yield to my colleague Senator Blunt and thank him for his work.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss our bipartisan efforts to pass a crowdfunding amendment that provides needed flexibility but also ensures that crowdfunding has sufficient oversight and investor protections. I was proud to work with Senators Merkley and Brown in crafting this bipartisan proposal. The Senate passed our amendment by a 64 to 35 margin. The House of Representatives subsequently passed our language when it considered the JOBS legislation earlier this week.

As the Securities and Exchange Commission works to implement this new law, it is my hope that it will recognize that the funding portal registration process is meant to be more streamlined and less burdensome than traditional broker-dealer registration. Given the size of the investments that are likely to occur in crowdfunding, the SEC should work to provide an appropriate level of oversight without making it cost-prohibitive to become a funding portal.

Funding portals should be allowed to organize and sort information based on certain criteria. This will make it easier for individuals to find the types of companies in which they can potentially invest. This type of capability--commonly referred to as curation--should not constitute investment advice or recommendations, which the law otherwise prohibits.

Similarly, funding portals should be allowed to engage in due diligence services. This would include providing templates and forms, which will enable issuers to comply with the underlying statute. In crafting this law, it was our intent to allow funding portals to provide such services.

We also sought to provide the Securities and Exchange Commission sufficient flexibility to promulgate rules to ensure individuals have the necessary information and protections to make informed investment decisions. It is my hope that the Commission will exercise such discretion judiciously and will not create a regulatory regime that is too cumbersome and expensive for funding portals to operate or for issuers to sell their securities. In preparing the law, we sought to find the right balance, preserving basic investor protections while ensuring enough entrepreneurial flexibility to help this promising medium take off for the good of our economy. I am hopeful that the Commission will respect this balance as it moves forward to implement this law.

Finally, we provided 270 days for the Commission to implement this new law. I hope the SEC will make every effort possible to meet this deadline.

Madam President, today I want to honor Senator Barbara Mikulski, who has represented the people of Maryland for more than 35 years, and who earlier this week became the longest-serving female Member of Congress. Senator Mikulski is a fighter, a fearless leader and a role model for women and young girls everywhere, including my three daughters, Caroline, Halina and Anne.

During the course of her distinguished career, Senator Mikulski has been an incredibly effective advocate, and in particular has taken a leadership role in mentoring other women as they follow in her footsteps to the halls of Congress. She has represented Maryland exceptionally well--on issues ranging from civil rights and the environment, to issues affecting working families and our criminal justice system.

Tracking Senator Mikulski's career is also a good way to follow the progress of women in our country. When first elected to Congress for Maryland's 3rd district in 1976, Senator Mikulski was one of 21 women serving in Congress. Today there are 92 women serving, thanks in large part to the trailblazing efforts of Senator Mikulski.

Through her work in an array of roles, from the women's amendment in the Affordable Care Act to her leadership on the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families, Senator Mikulski is known as a coalition builder. This role has led her to cultivate personal and professional partnerships among the members of the Senate. Likely some of the country's most important work is done during the bipartisan dinners she frequently hosts for her female Senate colleagues.

I am proud that my first vote as a Senator in January 2009 was in favor of one of Senator Mikulski's bills, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which guarantees women equal pay for equal work. And I have thoroughly enjoyed

working with her in the Senate HELP Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization and passage of the Affordable Care Act. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Mikulski on these and other important issues in the Senate.

March is Women's History Month, and I can think of no better time to honor and reflect on what Senator Mikulski's work has meant to the United States Senate and to her constituents in Maryland. Let us follow the leadership of Senator Barbara Mikulski and continue to fight for a better America.

Thank you, Madam President. And I thank the Senator from Illinois for his leadership and agree it is vital we pass the transportation bill.

Madam President, in my townhalls we talk about a lot of things that are very different from what people argue about in this place. One of the issues we talk about is the economy. And we talk about these four lines, as shown on this chart.

The first line is our gross domestic product, the economic output of the United States of America, which is higher today than it was before we went into this recession. A lot of people do not know that. We are producing more than we were producing before we went into the recession.

Our productivity has gone up dramatically since the early 1990s, as we have responded to competition from China and India and other places, as we have used technology to enhance our economic output. We have the most productive economy we have ever seen.

But we also face some very potentially catastrophic circumstances in this economy, one of which is that median family income has fallen for the last 10 years--the first time that has happened in our country's history.

And the other is that we have 23 or 24 million people who are unemployed or underemployed in an economy that is producing what it was producing before the recession happened. That is a structural issue. I have spoken on this floor about the importance of education in that context because the worst the unemployment rate ever got for people with a college degree during the worst recession since the Great Depression was 4\1/2\ percent. That is a pretty good stress test of the value of a college education.

The other thing we need to make sure we are doing as a country is continuing to innovate and drive innovation across the United States because it is those companies--the ones that are created tomorrow, the ones that are created next week--that are going to create new jobs in this country. That is going to drive our median family income up instead of down.

That is why I am on the floor today to talk about a bipartisan bill, a bill Senator Merkley and Senator Brown and I have worked on, on crowdfunding. It is an amendment that I hope will come to the floor. I hope we can get to a vote. Over the past months, we have worked together in a bipartisan way on a crowdfunding proposal that would allow crowdfunding to thrive but would also create an appropriate level of oversight and investor protection.

We have done something very unusual in this town: we took time to listen to people. We listened to crowdfunding platforms, entrepreneurs, and investor protection advocates. Many of them support this bill and have endorsed this bill. We worked hard to incorporate their ideas. As a result, we have a bipartisan amendment that has the support of both businesses and consumer advocates. That is something which does not happen frequently in this town.

I hope we will have a chance to vote on it. I will urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see this as a real opportunity to take one step--not a huge step but one important step--forward to filling this gap we see, to creating an economy again where rising economic output also means rising wages, and that rising economic output also means growing jobs. This crowdfunding amendment is a chance to do it. It is bipartisan.

I have some letters of support, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

It moves this ball down the field. I hope it establishes a model for how we can work together to make sure that we are actually addressing things I am hearing about in the townhalls and that we are driving wage growth and job growth here in the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley, for his leadership on this issue and for his willingness, when times got tough, to dig even deeper and make sure we get to the balanced approach that is reflected in this amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment, which around this place I think is worthy of all of us taking a moment to recognize, and it is an amendment the people who know most about crowdfunding support. I wish to read several paragraphs from some of those folks.

From Launcht, which is a crowdfunding platform, they note that our compromise:

[i]s important because, unlike previous bills, for the

first time, we have a Senate bill with bipartisan

sponsorship, a balance of state oversight and federal

uniformity, industry standard investor protections, and

workable funding caps.

From the National Small Business Association, we hear that our compromise:

[w]ould promote entrepreneurship, job creation and economic

growth by making it much easier for small companies to raise

capital and get new ideas off the ground. This legislation

represents a reasonable effort to accommodate differing

points of view and to move this important idea forward.

One prominent investor protection advocate wrote that:

[t]he CROWDFUND Act addresses this concern by providing

significant regulatory relief to very small issuers without

unreasonably compromising the investor protection provisions

on which the federal securities laws are grounded and the

long-term success of the U.S. securities markets has been

based.

The Senator from Oregon did an excellent job of describing the provisions in this bill, so I am not going to go over that ground again. But I do wish to talk for a moment before I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island about what it is we are trying to solve. Too often I think we don't ask ourselves what the nature of the problem is we are trying to solve before we actually set about solving it, and then--no surprise--we end up actually making matters worse.

In my townhalls the chief concern of the people who come is that median family income has continued to decline in this country. For the first time in this country's history, the middle class is earning less at the end of the decade than they were at the beginning of the decade. That has never happened before in the United States.

So person after person has come and said: Michael, I have done what I was supposed to do. I kept working at my job. Nobody said I didn't do a good job. But my wage is actually less in real dollars today than it was at the beginning of the decade, but the cost of health insurance continues to go up, the cost of college. I have had at least half a dozen people say to me they cannot afford to send their kid to the best college they got into. I can't think of anything that is more of a waste of our productivity than that.

The essential problem we are facing in this economy is structural. Our gross domestic product, believe it or not, as we stand here, is higher than it was when we went into this recession, the worst recession since the Great Depression. Productivity is also way up. The efficiency with which we are driving that economic growth is way up because we have had to respond to competition from abroad. We can't take anything for granted anymore. We have employed technology to drive productivity from the cotton pickers in my wife's hometown to the largest Fortune 500 companies that we have, and we have 23 or 24 million people who are either unemployed or underemployed in this economy.

The economic output is back, but it has decoupled from wages and it has decoupled from job growth and that was true before we went into the worst recession. You see, the last period of economic growth in this country's history is the first time our economy grew and wages fell, that our economy grew and that we lost jobs. It was a decoupling of economic growth from wage growth and from job growth. There is something terribly wrong with that picture, and it is creating an enormous downward pressure on the middle class in this country.

There are a bunch of things we need to do, but there are two major things that I think we need to do; one is, we need to educate our people for the 21st century. The worst the unemployment rate ever got for people with a college degree in the worst recession since the Great Depression, the one we just went through, was 4.5 percent. That is a pretty good stress test, it seems to me, of the value of a college education in the 21st century. But as a country today, if someone is a child living in poverty, their chances of getting a college degree are 9 in 100. If we don't change the way we educate people in this country, we will continue to see 91 of 100 children living in poverty constrained to the margin of our economy and the margin of this democracy. That is an important piece of work. We have a vital national interest in that, and we are not paying attention to it here.

But also we have to create the conditions in this country where we are driving innovation and driving job growth because the days of just expecting the largest companies in this country to create jobs are over. The jobs that went away in the 20th century, many of them are not coming back in the 21st century. It is about businesses that are started tomorrow and next week and the week after that and the month after that. In order to create those sorts of conditions, the amendment we have presented, this crowdfunding amendment, could unleash billions of dollars, as the Senator from Oregon said, of local investment, investment on Main Street--or on someone else's Main Street through the Internet--that could allow people with great innovative ideas for the first time to raise capital from our middle class and from other people who would like to participate in this kind of new business venture.

This is not all we need to do. There are many things we need to do, and I think there are things in this overall bill we need to fix. But this bipartisan amendment represents a real step forward. As we look to the future, it is the reason we need to do comprehensive tax reform in this Congress. It is the reason we need to fundamentally think differently in this Congress about our regulations. We should be asking ourselves the question: Are we more or less likely to be creating jobs in the United States with rising wages? I think we should put the politics of this aside because there isn't a person in this Chamber who doesn't want to do this. We start, though, with the recognition that we have structural issues we need to resolve.

I hope everybody who hasn't had the chance to get a look at the amendment will look at it. I hope people on both sides of the aisle will support this amendment. I am very pleased it is bipartisan, with Senator Merkley and Senator Brown, and I look forward to voting on this amendment this afternoon.

I see the Senator from Rhode Island is here. I thank him for his leadership on this legislation, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to express my support and appreciation for the Colorado Veterans Resource Coalition, CVRC, and Crawford House, which has offered our veterans in Colorado Springs a decade of support and recovery services.

CVRC was first formed on March 9, 2000, operating in a small, three- bedroom house on Cucharrus Street with a live-in house manager and two residents. Its first dormitory was later named in honor of WWII Medal of Honor recipient and proud native son of Colorado, William J. Crawford, with his family's permission.

On February 14, 2012, Crawford House marked its 10th anniversary, completing its first decade of successful veteran recovery services to homeless and disabled veterans in Colorado Springs. In that decade, more than 1,100 veterans successfully completed Veterans Administration programs, and 80 percent of these alumni remain successfully in the community. Many of these veterans reestablished relationships with their spouses, families, and friends; completed secondary and advanced education; and entered in to the workforce as self-sustaining citizens.

On December 1, 2003, the Colorado Veterans Resource Coalition and Crawford House added additional services, and on January 14, 2004, CVRC began purchasing two adjacent houses on Weber Street for graduating veterans to live in inexpensively while restarting their lives. These new facilities freed Crawford House beds to treat more homeless and disabled veterans. Today, both of these houses are fully paid for, which helps lower our future veteran treatment costs. It was my privilege to tour Crawford House and to meet with the staff and residents. The passion and commitment of those who work there, as well as their unending commitment to serving those who have served our Nation, is an inspiration and example to all Coloradans.

Therefore, Mr. President, I want the Record to show my deep appreciation and gratitude--along with that of all Coloradans--for the contributions of volunteers, organizations, and individuals who created, expanded, and continually improved the Colorado Veterans Resource Coalition and Crawford House.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 7 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor to discuss the Roberts side-by-side amendment. I support several provisions in Senator Roberts' amendment, but, crucially, others miss the mark.

One provision that gives me particular concern relates to the development of oil shale resources in the Rocky Mountain West. I believe we need to take a more cautious approach to oil shale development.

This type of energy development could have enormous implications for Colorado's scarce water supplies and our farming and ranching heritage.

That is why, over the years, a great diversity of voices--from the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Editorial Board--have raised concerns over plans to accelerate oil shale development on public land. Yet this amendment would do exactly that.

Mr. President, there are other provisions in the Roberts amendment that are certainly worthy of support. I hope to work with the Senator from Kansas as we continue the discussion about where to make wise investments in our Tax Code and elsewhere.

Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Menendez-Burr amendment, No. 1782, dealing with natural gas vehicles. We have an opportunity today to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by diversifying our vehicle fleet to run on a fuel that is not made from crude oil.

The Menendez-Burr amendment--which I cosponsor-- would make smart investments designed to spur greater production of vehicles that run on natural gas. Advances in technology have unlocked new reserves of natural gas in this country. And we ought to be using this resource-- which burns cleaner than any other fossil fuel--to power a greater share of our economy.

Natural gas is a domestic resource that we now have in relative abundance. Its development has driven economic growth in Colorado and across the Nation. Passage of the Menendez-Burr amendment would create even

more economic opportunities by building and retrofitting vehicles to run on natural gas.

To be sure, natural gas alone is not going to solve our problems. We need to focus on continued increases in vehicle efficiency. We have recently made great strides in that arena.

We also need to be sure we are developing natural gas in an environmentally responsible way. Colorado has been a leader on this point--with the strongest rules in the Nation--in ensuring that natural gas development protects communities and drinking water. Nationally more needs to be done to protect those living adjacent to development. I think all States should look to our rules in Colorado as a national model.

In short, this amendment will diversify our vehicle fleet, drive continued economic growth in the energy sector, and clean up our air-- all while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez-Burr amendment when it comes for a vote later today.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I want to, since he is on the floor, recognize the Senator from Utah and his extraordinary service in the U.S. Senate. We do not agree on this issue, but he has done a tremendous job for the people of Utah over many years.

I rise to talk a little bit about the amendment we are considering that would allow all employers and insurers to deny coverage, particularly for women, on any health care procedure or service they object to--not the women, but the employers and the insurance companies--on moral or religious grounds.

The first thing I want to do--and I have not been around here a long time, but I want to first observe in what context we are discussing and debating this amendment. We have devoted extensive floor time on this amendment about contraception and the lack of coverage for women's health care in the context of a job-creation bill, in the context of the Transportation bill. This is the bill I hold in my hand. This is the bill that is on the floor of the U.S. Senate right now. The title says:

A bill (S. 1813) to reauthorize Federal-aid highway and

highway safety construction programs, and for other purposes.

I would have thought those ``other purposes'' would be related to transportation, transit, to job creation in the United States. I do not think the ``other purposes'' that are talked about in this bill have anything to do with contraception or women's health. But that is what we are spending our time debating this week on the floor of the Senate, instead of passing this Transportation bill and putting people in this country back to work. How is this conversation relevant to job creation or to infrastructure? It is not.

In my home State of Colorado, I have held hundreds of townhall meetings in red parts of the State and blue parts of the State, and I do not remember a single time this issue--the issue that is of concern with this amendment--has been raised by anybody--by anybody--in 3 years.

I can tell you what people are talking about in Colorado. They want to know why we are not spending our time working on how to create more jobs for them, more jobs in the 21st century in this country or how to fix this Nation's debt or deficit or how we pass a bipartisan Transportation bill that creates immediate jobs and fixes a crumbling infrastructure, while maintaining the infrastructure assets our parents and grandparents had the thoughtfulness to build for us--another case where political games are risking our ability to provide more opportunity, not less, for the next generation of Americans, something every single generation, until this one at least--the politicians--has treated as a sacred trust. Instead, over the last several weeks, we have continued to debate about women and whether they should have access to the health care services they need, and whether they should be the ones who are able to make the decisions about the health care services they need. And we sit here and wonder why the U.S. Congress is stuck at an approval rating of 11 percent. Maybe it is because we are talking about contraception in the context of a Transportation bill.

I have a wife and three daughters--12, 11, and 7. There are a lot of women in my life telling me what to do every minute of every day and during the week, and thank goodness for that. One thing I know is they do not need to be told by the government how to make their own health care decisions--nor do the 362,000 Colorado women who would be affected immediately if this amendment passed.

This amendment is written so broadly that it would allow any employer to deny any health service to any American for virtually any reason-- not just for religious objections. Women could lose coverage for mammograms, prenatal care, flu shots, to name only a few essential services, and, yes--and yes--the right to make decisions around contraception and their own reproductive health.

My State, the great State of Colorado, is a third Democratic, a third Republican, and a third Independent. I can tell you, the last time there was an initiative on the ballot in my State to let the government intervene in women's health care decisions, it was defeated by 70 percent of the voters. Seventy percent of the voters said: You know what. We would rather leave these decisions to women to make for themselves. That is what my daughters want as well.

People are speaking loudly and clearly on this issue all across the country. These are not the issues we should be debating right now. We need to be having the conversations people are having at home in my townhalls instead of distracting them with politics: How do we create more jobs? How do we reform our entitlements so Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are here for our grandchildren and for our children? How do we create an education system that is training our people for the 21st century? How do we assure poor children in this country that they can have a quality education and make a contribution to this economy?

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and help us get back on the road to passing a bipartisan Transportation bill that will create new jobs and make substantial improvements in our economy and infrastructure. There is a time to debate this, but that time is not now when we are having this infrastructure discussion, we are having this transportation discussion.

I urge my colleagues to support the rights of women all across this country and their families and reject this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.