Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, it is probably clear to all of us that the American people have a very high level of frustration with the lack of productivity of this Congress. The fact is, when we go home to our respective States, I am sure we are all hearing what I heard last week as I traveled across Pennsylvania. People ask me: Why can't you guys work together? Why can't you get something done? Why does it seem there is so much partisan bickering that you can't come together even on simple things that could help grow this economy, help make progress in these very difficult times?

Well, on this front I think we have some good news, and I am delighted to talk about this tonight. I hope this early sign of good news reaches fruition and we actually have a meaningful accomplishment soon in this body as well as the other body.

Specifically, I am referring to the work that has been coming together of late on a series of capital formation bills that will help small and growing companies raise the capital they need to expand, to hire new workers, to help improve our economy and give us a healthier economy with the job growth we badly need.

In particular, I want to thank House majority leader Eric Cantor. Congressman Cantor took the step of pulling together a series of separate bills and putting them together in a package--a capital formation package. There is very broad support for this package in the House. I think under his leadership it is very likely to pass the House and will present a tremendous opportunity for us because there is broad bipartisan support for these commonsense reforms that will help companies raise capital and grow.

The bipartisan support includes the President of the United States. Much to his credit, the President--I believe just yesterday--issued a formal Statement of Administrative Policy indicating his full support for the passage of the measure that Leader Cantor is proposing in the House. Many of these proposals come from the work that the President initiated. Some of them are included in the startup America jobs plan that the President proposed. Some of them were recommended by commissions that the President assembled. The President spoke about the need for enhancing small- and medium-sized companies' access to capital in his State of the Union Address. So I think the President has been very clear and very strong in his support as the House Republican leadership has been.

In this body I think the leadership on both sides of the aisle has indicated support. The majority leader and the minority leader have both indicated their support for moving in this direction. The chairman and the ranking member of the Banking Committee have expressed a desire to move forward with the capital formation package, and there is wide support among outside groups. In fact, there is very broad support and very little opposition. The support includes support of entrepreneurs, whether they be from convenience stores, financial services firms, or high-tech firms.

In Pennsylvania, the life science companies feel very strongly about this because for them access to capital is a huge challenge. It is the absolutely essential precondition for their growth, and they are not alone. Manufacturers generally, supermarkets, all kinds of trade associations, the support for these kinds of capital foundation bills is very broad.

I want to touch specifically on three of the bills that I have been working on for quite some time now, and I am very hopeful and optimistic. First of all, these three bills are among six bills. The House companion version of these bills is in the package that Leader Cantor has proposed, and I believe there is broad support in this body for these bills as well.

The first I want to refer to is a bill that I have introduced with Senator Tester. It is S. 1544, and it is called the Small Company Capital Formation Act. It is more commonly known as the reg A bill. What it does is lift the current ceiling on the amount of money that a business can raise under the regulation provision of the securities law. That is a provision that allows a small

company to issue a modest amount of debt or equity without being subject to the full range of very costly regulations. The limit has been at $5 million for many years, and the bill that Senator Tester and I have proposed would raise that limit to $50 million. It has not been updated in almost two decades, and there is no question that raising the ceiling would allow a lot of companies that need to raise substantially more than $5 million the ability to do so and to thereby grow.

This is something the President has supported as well, and it passed the House by a pretty stunning margin of 421 to 1. It was not very controversial. I don't think it is controversial here, so I am glad this bill is included in this package in the House.

The second bill I would like to mention is S. 1824, the Toomey-Carper bill. It has to do with the limit on the number of shareholders a closely held company can have without triggering the full SEC compliance. Currently, that limit is at 500 shareholders. If you reach 500 or go above 500, then you are treated as a public company such as ExxonMobile for reporting purposes. That might have been appropriate many years ago, but in the modern era where communication is so much easier, access to information is so much greater and so much faster, the necessary information for shareholders can be distributed more broadly, more quickly, more easily, it is high time we raised that limit from 500 to 2,000 as this bill would do.

I appreciate Senator Carper's support for this legislation.

This is a bill that has a companion measure in the House that was raised at the House Financial Services Committee. They voted on it. They voted by voice vote and approved it. By voice vote that means, generally speaking, there is no opposition and nobody bothered with the rollcall vote because everybody supported it. That is a big, broad committee that represents virtually every constituency in the House of Representatives, and it was passed by a voice vote. This has very strong and broad support.

The third bill I want to mention is S. 1933, the Schumer-Toomey bill. The technical name is Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act. We call this more colloquially the on-ramp bill. The reason we call it that is because we think of it as an on-ramp to becoming a publicly traded company, a path to launching an IPO that will facilitate this.

There has been a big reduction in the number of IPOs that occur in the United States. The IPO, initial public offering, is the process by which a private company becomes a public company. It can be a very substantial opportunity to raise capital. As I mentioned earlier, when companies raise capital, they put that money to work by expanding and hiring new workers. An IPO is a hugely important step in a company's progress and almost invariably follows a substantial increase in hiring, and that is why this is so important.

One of the reasons companies are slower to go public now than they were in the past is because we in Congress created a much more expensive set of regulations when a company does go public. Part of that is the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, and certain features within Sarbanes- Oxley are enormously complex and expensive to comply with.

Our bill says if you are a relatively small company--specifically, less than $1 billion in revenues or less than $700 million in public float, the amount of stock that is traded, then you can do an IPO without having to comply with all of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations immediately. Over time you will have to comply if you exceed those thresholds that I mentioned, or within 5 years. In any case, you have to comply as everybody else does, but at least you have the opportunity to grow and the ability to afford the expense that is associated with it.

A companion measure to this bill--an identical version in the House was considered by the House Financial Services Committee, and that passed just a week ago. It passed the Financial Services Committee by a vote of 54 to 1. This is not very controversial. This has very broad bipartisan support, and this is the kind of legislation that is going to help businesses grow. I cannot stress enough the link between raising capital and growing one's company and hiring new workers. Capital and jobs are completely linked. What these bills will do, together with the other bills that make the broader package, is they will encourage a wealthier economy, stronger job growth, and more people working.

Let me stress one other aspect about this that I think is important to note. This came out at a hearing we had earlier this week on this very topic; that is, for many small companies, young companies, growing companies, there are a number of steps along the way to becoming a larger and more successful company, employing more people.

There are a number of steps along the way in raising capital that can start with an angel investor, followed by venture capital, followed by private equity, followed by maybe a securities issuance, followed by an IPO. This sequence of capital-raising is very important. If you facilitate any one step along the way, as these bills would, the experts who came and testified before our committee confirmed that by facilitating one step along the way, you facilitate the capital-raising at the earlier steps because what happens is the investors are more confident they will have the opportunity to liquidate their investment at a later stage if they see that the regulations have been made more amenable to that liquidation further down the road. So even if a company is not yet necessarily poised, for instance, to do the IPO, the fact that the IPO is easier to achieve when that company gets there increases their chance of raising money now through other vehicles, through other sources, and therefore increases their ability to grow.

I am very enthusiastic, as my colleagues can tell, about this legislation--certainly the three bills I have been working on and the other bills as well, which are a perfect complement to this and really constitute a portfolio of bills that will facilitate portfolio-raising across the board.

I thank my Democratic cosponsors of these particular bills, including Senators Tester, Carper, and Schumer, for working with me. I also wish to commend Leader McConnell for his leadership and Senator Reid for his, as well as Ranking Member Shelby and Chairman Johnson. I think what our constituents have been telling us for a long time is they want to see us working together and doing what is right for our country, for our economy, for job growth. This is a wonderful opportunity to do that.

I think it is quite likely that a package of these bills is going to pass the House very soon. I hope some comparable measure will pass in the Senate. The President has already indicated he supports it and wants to sign it. I don't think we should waste any time at all in passing the legislation that will be good for small and medium-sized businesses and good for their ability to grow and hire more workers.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an important reimbursement issue that impacts the lives of millions of Medicare beneficiaries and providers. The sustainable growth rate, SGR, originally implemented in 1997 through the Balanced Budget Act, was intended to constrain overall Medicare spending growth in physician services. However, since 2002, actual expenditures for physician services have exceeded allowed targets, yielding negative updates in prospective years. As a result, Congress intervened 13 times to preempt a physician payment cut. In doing so, they failed to address the underlying issue and sustained a flawed reimbursement mechanism. With each year that passes, the cost of `fixing' the SGR grows, amounting to an albatross of several hundred billion dollars. Consequently, on March 1, 2012, Medicare physicians will face a 27.4 percent cut to their reimbursement. Our budget baseline perpetuates an illusory premise that these cuts will occur. However, it's widely acknowledged that if implemented, these cuts would have a debilitative effect on medical practices and Medicare beneficiaries.

As Congress looks to yet again preempt a physician payment cut, I believe it is imperative that we identify a viable pathway to replacing the SGR. We can begin by utilizing Overseas Contingency Operations, OCO, funding to pay for the $195 billion in accrued SGR retrospective debt. OCO funds, deemed to be budgetary savings from the drawdown of military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, can be appropriately reallocated against accrued SGR debt that will not be collected. This would not constitute new spending, but rather amount to a down payment on an SGR fix. I urge conferees to give strong consideration to utilizing OCO funding to offset SGR's retrospective debt. It's time that Congress use honest budgeting and provide Pennsylvania's 2.2 million Medicare beneficiaries and 155,776 employees of medical practices, with some certainty.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Portman for organizing this colloquy and Senator Johnson for his contribution.

Let me start by making this point: It seems to me the two top priorities the budget--and most of what we do--ought to have are, No. 1, policies that will help encourage strong economic growth, a recovery that we need and the job creation that would come with it--that is No. 1--and No. 2, putting our Federal Government on a sustainable path because we are not on a sustainable fiscal path now, and if we do not get on a sustainable path soon, we are inviting a crisis. We are inviting a disaster.

It is my view that the President's budget fails badly on both fronts. On the economic front, there are a number of areas. First and foremost is a budget that proposes a growing budget deficit. The President who promised us in his first term he would cut the deficit in half, in fact, is proposing in fiscal year 2012--this year--a deficit that is bigger than last year and almost as big as the alltime record high-- nowhere near cutting these deficits in half. Huge deficits themselves have a chilling effect on economic growth because they discourage investment.

Everybody knows when we are racking up massive amounts of debt, unprecedented amounts of debt--as we are doing right now--there is a huge threat that the result will be either dramatic inflation or much higher taxes or both. Given that threat, businesses and entrepreneurs, understandably, are reluctant to take a risk, to make an investment, to grow a business, to hire workers. So that is point No. 1.

Point No. 2 that I would like to make is a little bit more technical and very specific; that is, the President's idea that we ought to tax dividend income, which is to say investment in business, at ordinary income rates instead of at the current 15-percent rate. I just want to illustrate why I think that is a particularly bad idea and why it will hurt our economy and weaken our ability to create jobs.

This little chart demonstrates what this means is, what the President is proposing is effectively a 63-percent tax on investment in a business. The reason I say that is as follows: If you can imagine, let's say you have saved some money and you want to invest in a business so that business can grow and hire workers. How will these taxes be paid?

Right now, we have just about the highest corporate income tax rate in the world. So if you make an investment in a business and that business makes a profit, the first thing that company has to do is pay $35 of every $100 it makes. Let's assume the company makes $100. At the 35-percent top income tax rate that the company pays, $35 is taken, goes to the government. So the aftertax income for that business is $65. That is what the owners of the business get, right? Not quite.

If the dividend is then paid to the owners of the business, the President wants that to be taxed now at the ordinary income tax rate. By the way, he wants that rate to go from the current rate of 35 percent up to 43.4 percent. A top marginal income tax rate of 39.6 percent, plus the 3.8 percent from the health care bill that was passed, brings the top marginal income tax rate to 43 percent.

I know this gets a little bit confusing, but at the end of the day, it is not that complicated. The $65 that is remaining after the corporation pays its income tax--if that gets paid to the investor-- that now, under the President's plan, would be subject to a 43-percent further tax.

That is another $28 that gets taken from that initial $100 of income, leaving the investor with $37 out of the $100 this business makes. So the President's plan is, if you want to invest in a business to help grow this economy and create jobs, the business--your activity--will be subject to having almost two-thirds of the income taken and you are left with about one-third.

What is the net effect? It is a huge disincentive to invest, to grow a business, to take a risk. Most of the rest of the world does not have tax rates this high, does not have a corporate tax rate this high, and therefore it is a further incentive for capital to move elsewhere.

I think we ought to pursue policies that encourage maximum economic growth, not policies that absolutely discourage savings and investment and the growth that comes with it.

If Senator Portman tells me I have a couple of other minutes, I will make one more point; that is, to switch to the sustainable fiscal profile which we are not on now.

The President, to his credit, has put his finger on precisely what is the long-term problem we face. He has described it as the mandatory health care spending, the entitlement programs, as a general matter. He is exactly right. When we look at his budget, it is very revealing.

If we take just the following categories--Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and interest on our debt, just those items--and look at what the President has proposed for those items over the next 10 years, it is an average annual increase of almost 8 percent--7.8 percent to be precise. But he is only proposing that the economy is going to be able to grow by about 5 percent.

Frankly, that is optimistic. So what happens if we have huge government programs growing faster than the economy each and every year for as far as the eye can see? That is the definition of unsustainable because these programs consume ever more of the budget and ever more of the economy until something has to collapse.

This is why I am so disappointed the President has not so much as suggested an idea for how we might reform the long-term, totally unsustainable path they are on. Most of us--Republicans in this body and in the other body--believe we need to make some changes for future retirees. We are not talking about changing the rules for people who are currently retired or about to retire but people my age and younger and my kids. When are we going to acknowledge that we have to fix this so these programs can survive for the next generation?

If we refuse, if we continue to go on this path, we are going to face the kind of financial crisis they are facing in Europe. We have a limited window of opportunity to solve this. It is not too late for us to avoid the fate of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic. But I would suggest we do not have time to lose.

I think the President has missed the big opportunity to provide some leadership. I hope we will make up for that in this body.

With that, I would be happy to yield back to my colleague from Ohio.

Mr. President, today I wish to speak about an important health issue that impacts the lives of many people across the country. Each year, more than 18,000 Americans are diagnosed with a serious blood disease and require a bone marrow transplant. Unfortunately, only 30 percent of those patients in need will find a suitable match within their family. Although about 5,000 patients each year receive a marrow transplant, others will pass away while awaiting a match.

Since 1987, the National Marrow Donor Program, NMDP, now publically

known as Be The Match, has undertaken a laudable effort to connect transplant patients with healthy, unrelated donors through the Be The Match Registry. Today, the registry includes more than 9.5 million registered donors. Despite their success in raising awareness and soliciting support, a small percentage of our population is registered. Patients from ethnic and minority communities face particular difficulty in finding matches due to limited diversity within the registry, further complicating the search for a viable genetic match. Deutsche Knochenmarkspenderdatei gGmbH, DKMS, currently the largest bone marrow donor center in the world, shares Be The Match's commitment to increasing donor recruitment and diversifying the marrow donor registry.

This year, marrow donor registry drives will take place in communities across America. One in particular, known as Simon's Saturday, will take place in Emmaus, PA. The bone marrow donor drive is named after Simon Ernst, an energetic 8-year-old from Upper Milford, who is bravely battling leukemia and awaiting a bone marrow transplant. Participation in the marrow donor registry is simple and safe. Interested participants must meet the age and health requirements, fill out a registration form, and provide a swab of cheek cells. I would like to encourage those interested to attend a bone marrow drive in their community or to join online by visiting the NDMP website at www.BeTheMatch.org or the DKMS website at www.getswabbed.org. The bone marrow donor program is a cause close to my family's heart, which is why I intend to participate in a bone marrow registry drive on February 18, 2012. This issue is especially important to my wife Kris, who has been a registered donor through Be The Match for the last 16 years, and I look forward to joining her and the more than 9.5 million individuals who have already joined. Together we can help provide hope and save lives.

Madam President, the Senator from Arizona is absolutely correct. The Earmark Elimination Act is not intended to preclude Congress from effectuating legal settlements, such as Indian water rights settlements, that resolve claims against the United States. This body must maintain its ability to avoid costly litigation and to limit the legal exposure of the United States in a manner that ultimately benefits American taxpayers.

Madam President, I rise in support of my amendment. I wish to thank Senator McCaskill for cosponsoring this amendment and for her support on this ban on earmarks.

What this amendment does is it would codify the current moratorium that is in place. I commend the majority Senators for extending that moratorium, but let's just codify this now, put this in place, and end this process that lacks any transparency. This is a surgical point of order that would not be held against the entire bill but, rather, just the specific earmark.

Unlike the next amendment, which would allow earmarks on authorization

bills and would permit, for instance, earmarking of the ``bridge to nowhere'' and would only forbid earmarks on appropriations bills, this would be a ban on earmarks of all kinds.

Some suggest that we would be ceding our constitutional control of the purse strings. This is clearly not true. Most of all government spending is not earmarked. Most discretionary spending is not earmarked. That doesn't mean we have ceded our authority to the executive branch. The fact is, we define the terms and the rules under which the spending can occur. That is appropriate, but it ought to happen under scrutiny and should be subject to full review.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, if the Senator will grant 1 minute on his amendment, then I will not object.

Madam President, I point out that the Constitution doesn't make a distinction between an authorizing committee and an appropriating committee. I don't think we ought to be having the discussion and argument over who gets the earmark and who doesn't. It is the process that is flawed. It is the process that doesn't have the kind of scrutiny and the transparency and is not subject to competition the way it ought to be before taxpayer dollars are spent. So my objection is to this process wherever this occurs in the Senate or the House.

While I respect the intentions of my colleague from Oklahoma, I disagree with him. I suggest a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine.

I disagree with the fundamental premise of this amendment. I do not think we should all be forced to divest ourselves of all of our holdings. But I think it is worse than it was characterized by my friend from Ohio--worse in the sense that, as I read the definition of the securities that would be covered and as the securities attorneys have advised us on this--we would be required to divest ourselves even of our investment in a small family-owned business, a business that, perhaps, has absolutely no market whatsoever for the equity, and we would, nevertheless, be forced to sell that where there is no buyer.

I think that is a very unreasonable standard, so I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1472, my amendment with Senator McCaskill.

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

Mr. President, I would like to make some comments about this amendment, but I will do that at a later time when time is more available.

I thank my colleague from Maine and my colleague from Ohio for their helpful cooperation in this process.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss an amendment that I think is relevant to this discussion. I thank my colleague, Senator McCaskill, for her work on this topic. It goes to the issue of the integrity by which this body and Congresses in general operates, which certainly is a central issue regarding this particular bill. Our amendment goes to a particular aspect of the integrity of this body.

My concern is that in the absence of our amendment, many of our colleagues will likely resume a very wasteful, nontransparent process which is prone to corruption and abuse, and that is the process of earmarking. I wish to speak a little bit about earmarks and what they are and why I think we ought to have a permanent legislative ban on the process.

Let me be clear about the process. Earmarks exist precisely in order to circumvent any real scrutiny, transparency, or any process by which this body, the other body, or the American people can evaluate the merits of a given project. There is no authorization to earmarks. There is no proper scrutiny. There is no competitive bidding among competing demands for resources. I think the process itself is indefensible.

In part because the process is so badly flawed, we should not be surprised that it leads to extraordinary waste. We have seen it. Some of the earmarks have become famous because they are so wasteful and inappropriate. We all heard about the ``bridge to nowhere.'' Recent earmarks include, above and beyond that, a $1 million alternative salmon products earmark. There was a $1.9 million earmark for the Charles Rangel Center for Public Service requested by none other than Congressman Charles Rangel. There was $550,000 for a glass museum, $2.5 million for Arctic winter games. The list goes on and on. I could go on all day with indefensible projects that got into law, taxpayer dollars that were spent precisely because these earmarks were permitted. I would argue that it has gotten to the point where it really adds up to real dollars and cents.

Those who would like to resume earmarking would like to suggest that it is not a real number, doesn't add up to a whole lot of money. Over the course of the last 15 years, the total value of taxpayer dollars spent this way has tripled. In the last Congress, it reached $36 billion.

One other thing that is particularly pernicious about earmarks is that over time they became a currency used to buy votes. There was this unwritten law that if you ask for an earmark in a spending bill and you get it, you are obligated to vote for that bill regardless of how bloated, inappropriate, wasteful, or otherwise nonsensical that bill might be. That is a really terrible process.

Finally, the fact is, it is an opportunity for corruption. I am not suggesting there is corruption involved in most earmarks. I am sure there is not. But we do know of some examples of some of our colleagues who did in fact use earmarks quite inappropriately to enrich themselves. I know of one in jail right now because of that. While that is certainly the very unusual exception, the fact is a process such as that is badly flawed and should be remedied.

As we all know, there is a current temporary moratorium in place on earmarks that has been adopted by both bodies and both parties. But that temporary moratorium expires this year. What our amendment does is create a permanent legislative ban on earmarks. It does that by creating a point of order. Any Senator can come down to the Senate floor and strike an earmark if one is inserted in a spending bill, and it would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate to override the effort to strike the earmark.

It is important to know that this amendment does not strike the entire bill. It would not invalidate the bill or otherwise disrupt the bill. It would surgically remove the earmark that would be offending this point of order.

As I say, I thank Senator McCaskill for her support. I thank Senator Coburn for the many years in which he has battled, as have others, especially Senator McCain and others. But Senator Coburn once described earmarks as the gateway drug to spending addiction, and I think he is really onto something with that characterization.

I think it is time we change the culture in Washington, that we change the culture of Congress, get away from a culture that says, how can we maximize spending, which really has been the culture of Congress for way too long, and move to a culture that says, how do we maximize savings, because when we are running trillion-dollar annual deficits, we have to find savings anywhere we can. I can't think of a better place to start.

If we really want to change Washington, if we really want to reduce wasteful spending, if we really want to eliminate opportunities for corruption, if we really want to change the culture of spending and begin the process of doing these things to hopefully restore some of the confidence of the American people in their government, one of the ways we can do this very constructively is to pass this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I wished to touch on a point the Senator just made that I think is important to underscore. I would agree without hesitation that there are any number of earmarked projects that probably have very good merit. This is not at all to suggest that every earmark that has ever occurred had no merit. That is not what this is about.

What we are criticizing and what we are trying to change is a very badly flawed process that permits a great deal of projects that have no merit to get funded that otherwise would not be funded. Those that have merit--and goodness knows all kinds of projects, especially transportation projects--ought to be funded, but they ought to be funded in a transparent and honest way, subject to evaluation by an authorizing committee and subject to competition, so those projects that have the greatest merit and the greatest need would be funded first. That is what I think we are trying to get at and get away from this process where an individual Member of either this body or the other body, in the dark of night, can drop in some specific provision because he or she wanted it without it being subject to the proper scrutiny and evaluation and competition that the taxpayer deserves.

I just wished to underscore that point. I appreciate the Senator's work and the message she brought.

Will the Senator yield?

This is a very important point. It is a common refrain from those who would like to go back to earmarking: We can't turn this over to the bureaucrats. Who controls the bureaucrats? It is Congress. If we think the bureaucrats are allocating resources in a way that we don't approve of, we can change the rules. We write the law that determines the criteria, the metrics, the methodology, the process by which they compete and evaluate competing projects. That is entirely up to us. So it is not fair for us to suggest that while the bureaucrats will not spend it wisely, then we should set the rules so they must. Frankly, they don't have the kind of incentives that some people who are holding elected office think they have to try to show up back home with a big oversized check. The bureaucrat doesn't have that incentive.

I would argue I can't imagine any bureaucrat who would award several hundred million dollars to build a bridge to nowhere or to build a cowgirl hall of fame or an indoor tropical rain forest. These are things that if a bureaucrat did make those decisions, it would be because they were following ridiculously flawed guidelines given to them by Congress. So this in no way diminishes Congress's control of the purse strings; it insists on a more accountable process by which we allocate the resources from the purse.

Would the Senator yield?

I can tell the Senator how I think a big majority of Pennsylvanians feel about this because I hear from them every day. Sure, there are some folks who would love to resume earmarks because they benefited from them in the past. I think the vast majority of Pennsylvanians--and I would guess Americans--generally understand that, especially at a time when we have reached $15 trillion in debt, when our debt now exceeds the entire size of our economy, when we are running annual deficits of over $1 trillion for the last several consecutive years and, frankly, probably in the years to come. We are in an unsustainable mode right now. What my constituents want is for us to put ourselves on a viable, sustainable fiscal path. That means getting spending under control. So I don't think our constituents want us to see how much money we can spend, as the Senator pointed out. They want to see how much we can save, and I think they would overwhelmingly welcome ending a process that clearly leads to wasteful spending.

If the Senator would yield one final time.

I appreciate the Senator's kind indulgences. I am newer to this body, and maybe that explains my relative optimism. I am hopeful that we do get a vote, and I am hopeful, if we do get a vote, it will succeed. I point to the voluntary moratorium both Chambers instituted 1 year ago as a sign that this is increasingly becoming the consensus view among Members of both bodies. I don't know if I am right. I am hopeful. If we don't succeed today, that means we need to come back on another day when we can succeed because there is no doubt in my mind that the people of Pennsylvania--and I suspect across America--want us to win this battle and begin to rein in wasteful spending. There is no better place to start than to ban these earmarks.

I thank the Senator from Missouri for her leadership and her work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the resolution of disapproval offered by the Senator from Texas. I commend her for leading this effort, and I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of the resolution.

Like many of my colleagues, I was dismayed last December when the Federal Communications Commission chose to impose heavyhanded and burdensome new regulations on the Internet. There was no market failure or consumer harm requiring FCC action, and the FCC Chairman's determination to deliver on a misguided Presidential campaign promise is very disappointing. It is especially troubling in light of the unanimous DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Comcast v. FCC, authored by a Clinton appointee and former Carter administration aide, stating that the Commission lacked the statutory authority under the Communications Act to regulate the Internet in this manner. Unfortunately, this decision, coupled with concerns expressed by Members of Congress, was completely ignored by an outcome-driven majority at the FCC. I doubt the Commission's lawyers will receive a warm welcome from the DC Circuit when they return to defend a policy the court struck down just last year.

Shortly after the Federal appellate court ruled in the Comcast case, recognizing that net neutrality rules adopted under the Commission's title I authority would have difficulty surviving a court challenge, Chairman Genachowski shockingly announced that he would reclassify broadband as a title II telecommunications service and apply a 19th- century regulatory framework to an innovative 21st-century technology. This decision ignored the successful history of treating broadband as a lightly regulated title I information service, which has been the policy of the FCC and Congress going back to the Clinton administration.

Keeping regulators' hands off of the Internet has historically been supported by FCC Commissioners and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. For example, on March 20, 1998, a bipartisan group of Senators sent a letter to the FCC stating: [[W]e wish to make it clear that nothing in the 1996 Act or its legislative history suggests that Congress intended to alter the current classification of Internet and other information services or to expand traditional telephone regulation to new and advanced services.] They continued: [[W]ere the FCC to reverse its prior conclusions and suddenly subject some or all information service providers to telephone regulation, it seriously would chill the growth and development of advanced services to detriment of our economic and educational well-being.]

I couldn't agree more.

Then Democratic FCC Chairman William Kennard shared their view, stating: [Classifying Internet access as telecommunication services could have significant consequences for the global development of the Internet. We recognized the unique qualities of the Internet, and do not presume that legacy regulatory frameworks are appropriately applied to it.]

Had traditional telephone common carrier regulations been applied to the Internet more than a decade ago, it is unlikely we would have the broadband services and speeds of today. The appropriate market incentives led to billions of dollars of private sector investment in broadband, created millions of jobs, and now high-speed Internet access is available to 95 percent of the population, and that number continues to grow. It is amazing what can happen when the Federal Government's regulatory policy for a particular industry is hands off.

Fortunately, after a bipartisan majority of Congress wrote to the Commission objecting to the FCC Chairman's proposed radical shift in policy, the FCC did not officially reclassify broadband as a title II telecommunications service. However, as we saw last December, the Democratic majority at the Commission did not abandon their results- oriented effort to regulate the Internet. Instead, in defiance of the Federal court decision in Comcast, the Commission chose to effectively place title II common carrier obligations on broadband service providers using their title I ancillary authority. The policy embraced by past Republican and Democratic FCC Chairman and Senators on both sides of the aisle has been relegated to the waste bin under the current regime at the FCC.

In order to justify placing these new regulations on the Internet, the FCC for the first time found that broadband was not being deployed to all Americans in a ``reasonable and timely'' manner. This is an absurd claim that quickly falls apart when you look at the facts. According to the FCC's own broadband plan, 95 percent of Americans have access to broadband. In the early 2000s, that number was less than 20 percent. In addition, terrestrial wireless and satellite broadband services continue to improve in terms of speed and availability. We are rapidly approaching the point where wireless Internet service becomes a true substitute for wireline service. This rapid rate of deployment and technological advances occurred absent the heavyhanded regulation we will be voting to repeal today.

For my colleagues who may be unaware, I would like to point out that the FCC determined that the broadband marketplace was competitive and should remain unregulated in 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Proponents of regulating broadband services have failed to demonstrate what has changed to warrant Federal intervention. Most consumers have a choice of multiple broadband providers, and the suite of services and applications available on home computers, mobile smartphones and tablets, and Internet-connected televisions continues to grow. Even through tough economic times, broadband providers continues to invest and create jobs. I also find it perplexing that despite the FCC acknowledging that it may require $350 billion in new investment to achieve the goals of the National Broadband Plan, the agency nevertheless willfully adopts rules that will have a chilling effect on future investment.

The Commission also makes the novel argument that section 706 of the 1996 Communications Act, which directs the FCC to ``remove barriers to infrastructure investment,'' authorizes the adoption of new Internet regulations. The open Internet order flies directly in the face of the plain language of section 706. When the Commission imposed new rules on broadband service providers, they built new barriers to infrastructure investment.

Support for Internet regulation seems to rely on baseless theoretical claims that consumers may be harmed by ``Internet gatekeepers'' at some point in the future. Despite the fact that the FCC Chairman has said he will use fact-based analysis when reviewing proposed rules, the facts indicate that consumers are not being harmed and broadband service providers are not blocking access to content. A fact-based analysis leads one to conclude that the market is healthy and competitive. I have significantly more faith in a competitive market rather than Federal bureaucrats shielding consumers from harmful business practices. In addition, current consumer protection laws, such as section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, will effectively address real consumer harms were they to actually ever occur in the broadband space.

Lastly, it should be noted that while there have been attempts by some in Congress to impose similar regulations on the Internet, these attempts have all been unsuccessful. Unelected bureaucrats have now usurped Congress's authority and have taken it upon themselves to change the law. Opponents and supporters of net neutrality in the Senate should take offense to that, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. President, I am proud to recognize the growth of Northampton Community College as

they break ground on a new 200,000-square-foot campus in Monroe County. In the past 40 years, Northampton Community College has grown into a public, comprehensive community college, matriculating 36,000 students through their credit programs, workforce training, adult literacy, and youth classes.

The new campus will nearly double the capacity of its current Monroe County campus and enable Northampton to continue offering degree programs specifically targeted to meet the needs of the local community. For example, the new campus will house the Workforce Development and Training Center, which is projected to train more than 1,000 new, incumbent and displaced workers within five years of completion. Additionally, the expanded campus will serve the needs of the community by providing greater public meeting spaces and athletic fields for youth sports.

Furthermore, this project will assist in helping the community weather tough economic times by spurring economic growth, creating hundreds of new jobs for Pennsylvanians and generating millions in economic revenue activity.

I would like to congratulate Northampton Community College on reaching a great milestone and look forward to hearing of future achievements.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate regarding judicial nominees from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I rise to offer my full support for the nomination of Judge Cathy Bissoon to serve as a U.S. district judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. But before I begin, I would like to quickly express my appreciation to my colleague, Senator Casey, whom I see across the Chamber at this moment, to thank him for his collaboration in our joint efforts to fill the vacancies on the Federal bench from Pennsylvania.

As I think many of our colleagues would agree, the confirmation of Federal judges is one of the most important constitutional functions of any Member of the Senate. Since I was sworn in, Senator Casey and I have worked together on a bipartisan basis to identify and advance qualified candidates for the Federal bench. As part of this effort, I have supported President Obama's three district court nominees for Pennsylvania, even though they were first appointed before I was sworn in to the Senate. I am pleased this spirit of cooperation has led to today's confirmation vote for Judge Bissoon. I remain hopeful we will have a number of confirmation votes in the very near future as Senator Casey and I continue to work together to recommend qualified individuals to serve on the Federal bench.

A quick couple words about Judge Bissoon. She was nominated last year following the recommendations of Senators Casey and Specter and was renominated by the administration in January. Judge Cathy Bissoon has had a distinguished career in the law. She was born and raised in New York City, where she attended Alfred University and graduated summa cum laude with a degree in political science. She earned her law degree from Harvard University before moving to Pittsburgh to join Reed Smith, an international law firm, where she has practiced labor and employment law in particular. She went on to clerk for Chief U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster and later returned to Reed Smith to be a partner in 2001. Judge Bissoon left private practice in 2008 to assume her current position as magistrate judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Her strong work ethic, discipline and, in particular, her experience in labor and employment law make her well qualified to preside over cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania, a district with a heavy employment caseload.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to sit down with Judge Bissoon and learn more about her legal philosophy. She stressed to me in that conversation that she understands very well a judge's role is to enforce the law as written, regardless of the judge's personal beliefs about that law. Chief Justice Roberts came up with a metaphor for this which has become rather famous, in which he described the role of a judge as an official on the playing field but not one of the players. Judge Bissoon confirmed that is exactly her view of the role of a judge, that it is the role of a legislator, branched together with the executive, to pass the law and the role of the judge to enforce the law impartially. I am confident she understands that role, has internalized that and would bring that, as well as a great degree of experience and judicial acumen, to this very important role. That is why I am supporting her nomination.

Following a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Bissoon was unanimously approved by the committee back in July. I have strong confidence in Judge Bissoon's ability, and I encourage my Senate colleagues to join me in confirming her as a Federal district judge for the Western District in a vote that will be occurring later this evening.

In addition to Judge Bissoon's nomination, I would like to briefly express my support for two other Pennsylvania nominees who were also unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee back in July. I hope they will each receive floor consideration very soon.

Mark Hornak, a nominee for the Western District of Pennsylvania, graduated from the University of Pittsburgh, where he was recognized as a National Merit Scholar. He went on to graduate summa cum laude from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, where he served as editor- in-chief of the Law Review and was awarded the Order of the Coif.

Following graduation, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable James Sprouse, U.S. circuit judge for the Fourth Circuit. Since 1982, he has practiced labor and employment law at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney. Throughout Mr. Hornak's career, he has been a careful student of the law and has demonstrated an intellectual curiosity and commitment to integrity, which I know will serve him well if he is confirmed to the bench.

Finally, Robert Mariani is a nominee for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He graduated cum laude from Villanova University, received his J.D. from Syracuse University College of Law. Following graduation, he established the law firm of Mariani & Greco, where he began a career as a civil litigator in the Scranton area and has done that for about three decades.

He is a respected member of the Scranton community. He was nominated for a State superior court seat in 1993 by then-Gov. Robert Casey, Sr. He served as a mediator or arbitrator for a variety of legal matters and currently is sole shareholder of Robert D. Mariani, P.C., with a focus on employment and labor law. Mr. Mariani's diligence, professionalism, and knowledge of the law would be an asset to the bench.

Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to meet separately with both Mr. Hornak and Mr. Mariani and I am very confident of their intellect, their experience, their integrity, temperament, commitment to public service, and to their understanding of the proper role of the judge. I believe these character traits and this range of experience will enable them to serve the people of Pennsylvania. I am, therefore, pleased to rise to speak on their behalf and to urge all my colleagues to support their confirmation.

I thank the chairman.

It is my understanding we are going to vote this evening on Judge Bissoon, and I would certainly enjoy the opportunity to work closely with the chairman to ensure that we could have votes as soon as possible on the other nominees.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Air Force Major Thomas E. Clark, from Emporium, PA, whose aircraft was shot down during a combat mission over Laos in 1969.

Thomas graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1963. He served with the 416th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 37th Tactical Flight Wing.

He was the beloved son of Otto and Josephine Schager Clark. He was married to his high school sweetheart, Kathleen Mottern of Emporium.

On February, 8, 1969, Major Clark was flying an F-100D aircraft from Phu Cat Air Base, Republic of Vietnam, in a flight of four on a combat mission over Laos. The flight engaged a 23mm anti-aircraft artillery battery and his aircraft was hit, burst into flames and crashed. No parachute was observed. Visual and electronic searches detected no sign of life. Subsequent to the incident the U.S. Air Force determined Major Clark to be Killed in Action, Body Not Recovered.

In his career, Major Clark was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Purple Heart, Air Medal with Two Oakleaf Clusters, National Defense Service Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal with One Bronze Service Star.

On October 14-20, 2009, a joint U.S/Laotian team investigated the crash site for the fourth time and recovered a human tooth which was later identified as the remains of Major Clark.

During a ceremony at Emporium, PA, on October 22, 2011, his remains

will be interred in a plot beside his parents.

My thoughts and prayers are with Major Clark's family and friends as we honor the life and service of this Pennsylvanian hero.

All Americans are deeply indebted to Major Clark for his service and sacrifice.

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

Madam President, last January--probably late in the month I think it was--it occurred to me that as we proceeded in the direction of approaching the statutory limit of our borrowing as a government, the discussion was becoming a little bit counterproductive in some respects. One, in particular, was this constant threat we would default on the loans we had taken out as a government, the bonds that were held by millions of Americans, and that a default would have cataclysmic repercussions. It occurred to me that this is an unproductive discussion, in part, because no such default was ever going to happen. Certainly, it didn't need to happen. In the event we didn't raise the debt limit upon reaching it or prior to that, we would have enough ongoing tax revenue to cover the debt service by many multiples.

So I introduced legislation that would clarify this. It would take this risk off the table and try to provide some clarity to markets and to senior citizens who are savers and who have invested their savings in Treasurys and to have a constructive and honest debate about what the implications are of reaching the debt limit without raising it. So I introduced a bill that would instruct the Treasury Secretary to prioritize debt service in the event we

didn't raise the debt limit upon reaching it.

Unfortunately, the idea was dismissed by the administration. It was derided. It was castigated. It was described as reckless and irresponsible and unworkable. This idea of prioritizing the payments we would make if we didn't raise the debt ceiling was dismissed out of hand.

Now we have two reports that have come out this week. One cites the fact that senior Treasury officials have been calling around to big banks assuring them that in the event we don't raise the debt ceiling, which we will hit within just a few days, Treasury is assuring the banks there will be no default; they have this covered, and they have taken care of this. The scheduled interest and principal payments on our bonds will occur on schedule.

It is nice that the administration is informing the banks of this. I think it would be nicer still if they would inform the American public and everybody who has such an important stake in ensuring that the U.S. Government not default on its debt. So that was the first report.

The second report came out just late last night--and it has been confirmed today--which is that the Treasury has, in fact, been working on a plan of the very nature they have been deriding and denying for many months now; that they, in fact, have been developing and are continuing to refine a plan to prioritize the payments that will be made in the event the debt limit is not raised by August 2.

I am glad they have finally come to this conclusion. I wish they had approached Congress and worked with us constructively many months ago when I first suggested we ought to have a plan B, but I would say it is better late than never. But now I think we ought to get this plan, such as it is, exposed to the sunshine of public discourse. We ought to understand what this process will be and Congress ought to have a role in it.

That is why I introduced an updated version of this bill last week. I have 33 Senate cosponsors on the bill. The purpose of the bill is not to be a substitute for raising the debt limit. I understand if we don't raise the debt limit close to August 2, the results will be very disruptive. We can minimize that disruption if we have a game plan, and we ought to work this out. The bill I introduced with a number of colleagues is a bill that identifies three very high priorities, that we ought to make sure we make these payments, whether or not we raise the debt ceiling. We know we will have enough money to do so, and I think we have an obligation to do that.

The three categories embodied in our bill are, first, interest on our debt. By making sure we make those payments we avoid a catastrophic default and we avoid the financial consequences which could be very dire. So that ought to be one of the top priorities. The second, equally important, is making sure we send out all the Social Security checks in full and on time to everybody who has one coming. Senior citizens all across America, including my parents, depend on Social Security checks, and they have earned those benefits by virtue of the contributions they made into that system, in many cases, for many decades.

The third and final item I think ought to be prioritized in the event we don't raise the debt ceiling by August 2 is salaries paid to Active- Duty military. I think the men and women who are risking their lives for all of us deserve to have the peace of mind of knowing that their families back home will not have to wait until Congress gets its act together for them to get their paycheck in arrears. It ought to be done on time.

So these three items, if we add them all and look at the amount they would cost during the month of August and we compare that to the tax revenue that is going to come in the door in August, these three expenses are less than half the amount of tax revenue that is going to come in. Clearly, and obviously, this is easily manageable--or easily affordable, I should say.

Technically, the Treasury and the Fed have some work to do, no doubt, to make sure this is all done smoothly. That is precisely why they should have engaged with us a long time ago, so we could have had a constructive period of time to work out whatever details are necessary so we could have as smooth a functioning process as possible--one that would have the benefit of a transparent debate.

I acknowledge there might be other items that ought to be added to the list, and we ought to have a debate on the floor to consider those items. What we would end up with is a process that the American people would understand, they would know, they could anticipate, and it would be far more constructive. It is getting late in the day, but maybe it is not too late. I hope this body will take up my bill and it will have that debate, we will have some kind of resolution, and we will provide some guidance. I think it is part of our constitutional obligation to have control over spending that occurs in our government, and this should be no exception.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. If my colleagues have constructive suggestions of how we can make it better, I welcome them, as I welcome working with the Treasury and the administration, to make sure that we, in the unfortunate event--if it should occur--that we don't raise the debt ceiling by August 2, do everything we can to minimize the disruption that will follow.

I yield the floor.