Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank Senator Kyl for his eloquent speech on the issues of the day that are obviously very serious for the American people.

Madam President, I am here to speak on a couple of issues--first and foremost, regarding the Asset Forfeiture Responsibility Act of 2011, an act that I have filed and will speak on in a moment.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I want to comment on Secretary Gates' last day over at the Pentagon. I was over there doing some work, and I noted that he was being honored today. I thank him for his dedication and service to our country. He leaves behind an incredible record of service.

Our military and families, while strained, have never been more prepared to fight and win in today's conflicts. From my interaction with him, I have gained an enormous level of respect for his tireless leadership and committed resolve on behalf of our men and women in uniform and their families.

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your incredible service to this Nation. You have made us all proud.

Madam President, today, one of our Nation's finest officers, GEN David Petraeus, leaves behind a distinguished record of military service and moves on to a new job. The wealth of experience he brings to this critical post will be invaluable as he and the other dedicated public servants at the Agency work to keep our Nation safe from harm. I have the utmost faith in his leadership and look forward to the contributions he will make to the Agency and to our country.

(The remarks of Mr. Brown pertaining to the introduction of S. 1312 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.)

On a side note, I am hopeful that we will continue to work together and try to get through a lot of these fiscal challenges we have. I, for one, along with many others, look forward to finding common solutions to move our country forward and step back from the financial precipice we are approaching.

I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls be divided equally to both sides, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about overregulation--something that is really putting a wet blanket on many businesses throughout our country, and especially in Massachusetts. That is why I am introducing a bill to reform the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's--or NOAA's--asset forfeiture fund.

The fund, as you may know, is authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Act and allows NOAA to retain fines and penalties collected as a result of enforcement actions for legitimate enforcement purposes.

As the Department of Commerce inspector general's excellent work revealed, NOAA has mismanaged that fund for many years, wasting taxpayer funds on exorbitant foreign travel and unauthorized purchases of vehicles. As a matter of fact, they purchase more vehicles than they actually have employees. So that speaks for itself. They also purchased a $300,000 luxury boat with the funds collected in that forfeiture fund.

The reason I am standing on the floor of the Senate today is because the way the fund has been implemented has actually corrupted the relationship between the fishermen and the regulators. Fishermen have complained for years about the arbitrary fines, overzealous enforcement, and violations of their due process rights when it comes to dealing with NOAA. After decades of such complaints, mostly in the Northeast, the Department of Commerce appointed a distinguished retired judge to serve as a special master and investigate enforcement actions and abuses by NOAA.

In one case, a New Bedford, MA, fisherman lost his livelihood and a farm that had been in the family since the 1640s. He was forced to sell due to punitive NOAA penalties. Incredibly, the Commerce Department's own special master concluded that the perverse incentive to fill the asset forfeiture fund with funds was a motivating factor in how NOAA handled that case. Larry Yacubian got not only a check but an apology from Washington because of those abuses, but he will never get his home back.

That is why in my role as ranking member of the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, I, along with my dear friend, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, held a field hearing in Boston on June 20 to identify a lot of these longstanding problems and identify the problems with the asset forfeiture fund itself.

Unfortunately, the hearing revealed that while NOAA has instituted some reforms to its management of the asset forfeiture fund, including auditing the funds for the first time in nearly four

decades, it still intends to utilize the seized assets of fishermen to pay for foreign travel, which is inappropriate.

The years of NOAA's mismanagement and abuse of the asset forfeiture fund have bred mistrust among fishermen and Federal officials, and it can only be broken by removing the fund from NOAA.

It is for these reasons that today I am introducing the Asset Forfeiture Responsibility Act of 2011, which will hopefully end this sad chapter in Federal financial management by this agency by replacing the existing funds with a new fisheries investment fund. Funds will be kept--like most every other fund--at the Treasury Department for the benefit of regional councils and NOAA, and the fund will be audited for the next 3 years to make sure they are getting their act together.

The fishing investment fund will direct monies from those fishermen who break the rules toward assisting fishermen with the ever-growing costs of regulatory compliance and to reimburse the legal fees incurred by fishermen whose fines were remitted by the recommendation of the Special Master.

Currently, appropriated funds assist fishermen with the costs of compliance, but in these difficult fiscal times this funding is actually at risk. This legislation would provide a more reliable source of funds to offset the increasing cost of compliance, while allowing the fishing councils the flexibility to address other priorities, such as preparing fishing impact statements and addressing other priorities to rebuild or maintain the fishery and the fishing stocks.

As I have always said, since I was elected and got involved in this issue, all the fishermen want is to have a level playing field and an assurance that those who break the rules will be caught and they will be fined appropriately. That is why I have maintained funding for NOAA's legitimate law enforcement responsibilities.

However, in the end, we should be focused, quite frankly, in this Chamber on bettering the economic security and ability of the American people to make an honest living. This bill will bring back jobs to the hard-working men and women of the American fishing industry while restoring their trust in government. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about overregulation--something that is really putting a wet blanket on many businesses throughout our country, and especially in Massachusetts. That is why I am introducing a bill to reform the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's--or NOAA's--asset forfeiture fund.

The fund, as you may know, is authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Act and allows NOAA to retain fines and penalties collected as a result of enforcement actions for legitimate enforcement purposes.

As the Department of Commerce inspector general's excellent work revealed, NOAA has mismanaged that fund for many years, wasting taxpayer funds on exorbitant foreign travel and unauthorized purchases of vehicles. As a matter of fact, they purchase more vehicles than they actually have employees. So that speaks for itself. They also purchased a $300,000 luxury boat with the funds collected in that forfeiture fund.

The reason I am standing on the floor of the Senate today is because the way the fund has been implemented has actually corrupted the relationship between the fishermen and the regulators. Fishermen have complained for years about the arbitrary fines, overzealous enforcement, and violations of their due process rights when it comes to dealing with NOAA. After decades of such complaints, mostly in the Northeast, the Department of Commerce appointed a distinguished retired judge to serve as a special master and investigate enforcement actions and abuses by NOAA.

In one case, a New Bedford, MA, fisherman lost his livelihood and a farm that had been in the family since the 1640s. He was forced to sell due to punitive NOAA penalties. Incredibly, the Commerce Department's own special master concluded that the perverse incentive to fill the asset forfeiture fund with funds was a motivating factor in how NOAA handled that case. Larry Yacubian got not only a check but an apology from Washington because of those abuses, but he will never get his home back.

That is why in my role as ranking member of the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, I, along with my dear friend, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, held a field hearing in Boston on June 20 to identify a lot of these longstanding problems and identify the problems with the asset forfeiture fund itself.

Unfortunately, the hearing revealed that while NOAA has instituted some reforms to its management of the asset forfeiture fund, including auditing the funds for the first time in nearly four

decades, it still intends to utilize the seized assets of fishermen to pay for foreign travel, which is inappropriate.

The years of NOAA's mismanagement and abuse of the asset forfeiture fund have bred mistrust among fishermen and Federal officials, and it can only be broken by removing the fund from NOAA.

It is for these reasons that today I am introducing the Asset Forfeiture Responsibility Act of 2011, which will hopefully end this sad chapter in Federal financial management by this agency by replacing the existing funds with a new fisheries investment fund. Funds will be kept--like most every other fund--at the Treasury Department for the benefit of regional councils and NOAA, and the fund will be audited for the next 3 years to make sure they are getting their act together.

The fishing investment fund will direct monies from those fishermen who break the rules toward assisting fishermen with the ever-growing costs of regulatory compliance and to reimburse the legal fees incurred by fishermen whose fines were remitted by the recommendation of the Special Master.

Currently, appropriated funds assist fishermen with the costs of compliance, but in these difficult fiscal times this funding is actually at risk. This legislation would provide a more reliable source of funds to offset the increasing cost of compliance, while allowing the fishing councils the flexibility to address other priorities, such as preparing fishing impact statements and addressing other priorities to rebuild or maintain the fishery and the fishing stocks.

As I have always said, since I was elected and got involved in this issue, all the fishermen want is to have a level playing field and an assurance that those who break the rules will be caught and they will be fined appropriately. That is why I have maintained funding for NOAA's legitimate law enforcement responsibilities.

However, in the end, we should be focused, quite frankly, in this Chamber on bettering the economic security and ability of the American people to make an honest living. This bill will bring back jobs to the hard-working men and women of the American fishing industry while restoring their trust in government. It is the right thing to do.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011. This is a good, commonsense piece of legislation that has bipartisan support.

When President Kennedy came to office, he had 286 positions to fill with the titles of Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and Administrator. By the end of the Clinton administration, there were 914 positions with these titles.

Today, there are more than 1,200 positions appointed by the President that require the advice and consent of the Senate.

The large number of positions requiring confirmation causes long delays in selecting, vetting, and nominating these appointees.

I strongly believe the confirmation process must be thorough enough for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty, but it should not be so onerous as to deter qualified people from public service.

The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act removes the need for Senate confirmation for only 205 positions by converting these positions to Presidential appointment-only. They include positions involved with internal agency management and positions that are already accountable to other Senate-confirmed positions, such as internal management and administrative positions and deputies or nonpolicy-related Assistant Secretaries who report to individuals who are Senate-confirmed.

Some have argued that, through this bill, the Senate cedes some of its constitutional power to the executive branch. However, this bill actually represents an exercise of the Senate's constitutional prerogatives.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to decide whether a particular position should be categorized as an inferior officer that need not go through the Senate confirmation process.

The Senate has a number of important responsibilities that it must undertake, and it is questionable whether spending time confirming, for instance, the Alternate Federal Cochairman, Appalachian Regional Commission, is the most appropriate use of our limited time and resources. Prioritizing our work for the American people, by eliminating some Senate-confirmed positions, does not diminish the Senate's authority.

Mr. President, I am honored to be able to speak as well with my friend and colleague, Senator Kerry, to celebrate this victory. I was 11 years old when it last happened. I come to the floor to recognize the Boston Bruins and their thrilling season and 4-0 victory in game 7 over Vancouver in the Stanley Cup finals.

I enjoy not being an avid skater like Senator Kerry. I am amazed at the way they go all out and then just slam each other up against the boards and actually get up. I find that amazing. Obviously, they are bringing the Cup back, as Senator Kerry said, for the first time since 1972.

We actually have a couple of Boston fans with us today. As my colleagues know, it is also the home of the Beanpot tournament and some of the best college hockey in the country.

The Bruins made history last night by becoming the first team in the NHL to win three deciding game 7s in a single playoff run, twice rebounding from being down two games to none. For Bruins fans, including myself and everybody I was with last night, we were very excited about the victories over the rivals from Montreal and then Philadelphia, Tampa, and finally Vancouver. It made for a memorable month.

Being the big underdog before the series began, the Bruins played inspired hockey to win Lord Stanley's Cup, and they did it as a team. They played outstanding defense against one of the best offensive teams in the NHL. Bostonians will never ever forget the sight of Captain Chara standing 6 feet 9 inches tall, which I find truly amazing, accepting the Stanley Cup and lifting it high above the ice. Chara led the incredible defensive effort in that series.

It was also an unforgettable moment for NHL veteran Mark Recchi. Playing in his final NHL game last night, Recchi capped a great career the way most professional hockey players can only dream about--with the Stanley Cup in his hands moving around the ice. Last night, he said it was one of the best groups of players he has ever played with. For those of us who watched, we can attest that it was one fun team to watch. It was a lot of fun. Everyone was so excited, regardless of whether they were a Bruins fan, just to see the intensity with which the series was played.

It was a mixture of youth and experience, hard physical play and great scoring touch that helped put together this run. Brad Marchand, a Bruins rookie, has become a household name also with hockey fans after scoring an impressive 11 goals throughout the playoffs, setting the record for the most playoff goals by a Boston rookie and tying for second most in NHL history.

Patrice Bergeron, coming back from an injury that cost him two games earlier in the playoffs, scored the first goal in game 7 that set the tone. As Senator Kerry said, our clutch goalie, Tim Thomas, took home the Conn Smythe Trophy as the most valuable player during the playoffs. I didn't know a body could move like that, quite frankly. He was the consummate professional, literally unbeatable, with shutouts in games 4 and 7.

Behind the bench, as my colleagues know, Coach Claude Julien led the ``Bs'' with quiet confidence, even as his team faced daunting deficits and the devastating loss of forward Nathan Horton in game 3 of the Cup finals. The home team had won each of the first three games, so while he couldn't play, Horton was there to, as was referenced, take some Boston water and put it on the ice to make it our home ice. This is vindication for team president Cam

Neely, a Bruins great for so many years; Peter Chiarelli, the general manager who put this great team together; and owner Jeremy Jacobs and his team as well.

With the Bruins' Stanley Cup victory, the city of Boston can, in a classy manner, celebrate this victory, as we have done before. As Senator Kerry also pointed out, we are very blessed in Massachusetts and in New England to have the Patriots, Red Sox, and Celtics to round out a decade that includes many world championships. Upon the arrival of the Stanley Cup in Boston today, the Bay State has hosted all four major championship trophies since 2005. As we all know, since 2002, the Patriots have won the Lombardi Trophy three times, the Red Sox have captured the World Series Trophy twice, and the Celtics have earned the O'Brien NBA Title Trophy once. That is an unprecedented run in sports history.

No longer left out, the Bruins can join a highly decorated group of teams that has never been matched. I didn't come down to the floor to brag about Boston's reputation as the home of the greatest champions in professional sports. No, I have to say that the evidence is pretty compelling on its own.

So with great pride as the junior Senator from Massachusetts, today I also honor the 2011 Boston Bruins for their remarkable season and commend them for their relentless pursuit of Lord Stanley's Cup. Another championship banner will hang from the rafters of the TD Bank Garden, and I am very optimistic it will not be the last one for Boston, the hub of hockey.

I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on this day in 1777, the Second Continental Congress adopted the flag of the United States. At that time, American colonists were just 2 years into their long and bloody struggle for independence and only a year earlier had declared independence from the British throne. Since that time, our flag has been carried into countless battles and has been proudly worn on the uniforms of millions of American servicemen and women.

I rise today to tell the story of one such American, US Army PFC John T. Marr of Dorchester, MA. Private Marr was mortally wounded in combat on a hill on the other side of the globe. The hill happened to be in Korea in 1953. It could have been so many other places where Americans fought and died: Bunker Hill in Boston, Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg, the cliffs of Normandy, Kakazu Ridge on Okinawa, Hamburger

Hill in Vietnam or the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan.

Private First Class Marr could have been so many other people's husband, son or brother throughout our nation's history.

John Marr, ``Jack'' to his family and friends, was among thousands of Massachusetts residents to serve our Nation in Korea and among the hundreds to die there. Korea has been referred to as the ``forgotten war.'' By the early 1950s, our Nation had grown war weary, having so recently endured a global war in which more than 400,000 American servicemen died and far more than a half million were wounded. Yet while the Greatest Generation returned from Europe, Africa, and the South Pacific to build modern America, hundreds of thousands of their younger brothers were fighting and dying on the Korean Peninsula. The Korean war was never forgotten by people like the Marr family of Dorchester who on a hot summer day in 1953 received word that their middle child had died in the service of his Nation.

By all accounts, Jack Marr was a young man with a promising life ahead of him. He was an outstanding athlete, well-liked by all, newly married, and worked for his family's successful South Boston contracting business. Yet like millions before and after, Jack answered his Nation's call to serve.

In Korea, Jack was communications chief of Company D, 179th Infantry Regiment of the 45th Infantry Division. On July 19, 1953, his unit came under heavy mortar attack, wounding several members who were caught in the open. With no thought for his own safety, Jack Marr left the cover of his bunker to pull wounded comrades to safety and was mortally wounded by an exploding mortar round. Private First Class Marr was among the last Americans to die in the Korean war, and succumbed to his injuries just 2 days before the Armistice went into effect. Jack left behind his wife Mary, loving parents, brothers Daniel, Jr. and Robert, and a sister Judith Marie.

The Marr family will honor Jack this Flag Day by dedicating a flagpole on the grounds of their family business on D Street in South Boston. I join the Marr family in honoring the service and sacrifice of PFC John T. Marr and will close with words engraved on the plaque they will unveil today. ``This flagpole is dedicated to the courageous military service of John T. Marr. Jack answered the call to defend the people of South Korea. His sacrifice will forever be an example of hope, conviction and the unconquerable American spirit in the pursuit of freedom.''

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize MG James C. McConville for his professional dedication and service as the Army's Chief of Legislative Liaison, from January 6, 2010, to July 5, 2011. In this capacity, Major General McConville was responsible for advising the Secretary of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Army and other Army senior leadership on all legislative and congressional matters. During this period of extraordinary change and challenge for the Army, he masterfully led the Army's outreach to Congress.

It is an honor and a pleasure to recognize my good friend Jim McConville who is a native of Quincy, MA. He received his nomination to the U.S. Military Academy from the late senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Upon graduation from West Point, he was commissioned as an infantry officer. He was also a 2002 national security fellow at Harvard University. He has had an exemplary military career culminating in his recent selection as the commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, at Fort Campbell,

Mr. President, I want to begin by expressing my support for what Senator Snowe has been doing and for the EDA Reauthorization Act. I applaud the committee for producing a good, comprehensive bill. These EDA grant programs provide vital resources, not only for Massachusetts economic development and its businesses, but also other States throughout the country to help communities get back on their feet in this tough economic climate. For that reason, the reauthorization of this bill is incredibly important, and I encourage that it be done.

I rise to speak about two amendments to this bill that affect the stability of our small businesses. Senator Snowe and Senator Coburn's FREEDOM Act, to reform the small business regulatory system, is one that I have consistently supported because it is a commonsense solution. When I am traveling around my State, no matter where I go and no matter with whom I speak, from CEOs all the way down to the worker who is just doing the everyday work, one thing I hear over and over is a plea to get rid of the one-size-fits-all Federal regulations that are limiting businesses.

Businesses need certainty and stability in order to create an economic climate for jobs not only to be created but to be retained, not only in Massachusetts but throughout the country.

This amendment would require that Federal agencies conduct comprehensive analysis on the potential impact of regulations on small businesses. It has the support of the NFIB and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Simply put, burdensome regulations are hurting our small businesses and job creators and are preventing them from growing and hiring. It is a shame this amendment got caught up in partisan volleying in the SBIR reauthorization. I am happy to have an opportunity to speak about it today.

I also want to turn the Senate's attention to amendment No. 405 to repeal the 3 percent withholding tax, a malignant and business- threatening provision. It is based on S. 164, the Withholding Tax Relief Act, which enjoys bipartisan support and is critically needed now. Senator Snowe is a cosponsor, as well as 14 of my colleagues.

We need to repeal once and for all this onerous and costly unfunded mandate. This is a jobs amendment, plain and simple. It would repeal a part of our Tax Code that promises to kill jobs.

As you know, Mr. President, we have had many comments about how this bill would, in fact, cost potentially as high as $75 billion to actually implement. The moneys received back to the Federal Government would be about $8 billion over that same period. It is absurd. Any program that costs more to implement than it brings in revenues should be repealed immediately.

Two months ago I received a letter from the Massachusetts State secretary of finance, Jay Gonzalez, warning Congress of the inevitable threat to the ability of small businesses to survive in this economic climate if we allow the continuation of this stealth tax.

I encourage colleagues to also adopt that amendment.

Madam President, I thank the Senator who spoke before me.

Amendment No. 405

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside in order to call up amendment No. 405.

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

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. President, on May 23 the Senate voted on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011, S. 193. I was necessarily absent for this vote. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``aye.'' The act will extend sections 206 and 215 of the Patriot Act and section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, IRTPA, for 4 more years before they expire on May 27. The PATRIOT Act, with these provisions, has provided vital tools and resources to our counterterrorism professionals that have enabled them to disrupt dozens of active terrorist plots. By empowering our counterterrorism professionals to do their jobs, we can continue to disrupt and prevent terrorist attacks in the homeland and abroad. I voted for the 90-day extension of these three provisions in February and I look forward to voting on final passage of the long-term extension this week.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Thomas G. Kelley of Boston, MA, a veteran who risked his life for his nation and went on to a distinguished career serving his fellow veterans.

A son of Boston, Tom Kelley responded to our Nation's call of duty and enlisted in the U.S. Navy, where as a lieutenant in Vietnam he commanded River Assault Division 152. In his service to our Nation, Tom Kelley earned our highest military decoration, the Medal of Honor. The story of how it happened is worth recounting.

On June 15, 1969, Lieutenant Kelley was leading several boats up the Ong Muong Canal to extract an Army company when one suffered a mechanical failure. Moments later, the enemy attacked. At this point, I would like to quote from Tom Kelley's Medal of Honor citation presented by President Richard M. Nixon:

. . . Lt. Comdr. Kelley realizing the extreme danger to his

column and its inability to clear the ambush site until the

crippled unit was repaired, boldly maneuvered the monitor in

which he was embarked to the exposed side of the protective

cordon in direct line with the enemy's fire, and ordered the

monitor to commence firing. Suddenly, an enemy rocket scored

a direct hit on the coxswain's flat, the shell penetrating

the thick armor plate, and the explosion spraying shrapnel in

all directions. Sustaining serious head wounds from the

blast, which hurled him to the deck of the monitor, Lt. Cmdr.

Kelley disregarded his severe injuries and attempted to

continue directing the other boats. Although unable to move

from the deck or to speak clearly into the radio, he

succeeded in relaying his commands through one of his men

until the enemy attack was silenced and the boats were able

to move to an area of safety.

The citation concludes:

Lt. Comdr. Kelley's brilliant leadership, bold initiative,

and resolute determination served to inspire his men and

provide the impetus needed to carry out the mission after he

was medically evacuated by helicopter. His extraordinary

courage under fire, and his selfless devotion to duty sustain

and enhance the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

Tom retired from the Navy in 1990 with the rank of captain and continued to serve in the Defense Department as a civilian. After returning to his hometown of Boston, Tom was named commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Veterans' Services in 1999. In 2003, then Governor Romney named him the department's secretary, where he served until January of this year. Many of us in and out of the service were very sorry to see him go.

While at the helm of the Massachusetts Department of Veterans' Services, Tom Kelley remained a hard-charger, and through tireless effort, transformed the agency into a national model for effective and efficient care. Under Tom's leadership, a new generation of warriors went off to fight in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Liberation. Many of these warriors came home with severe physical injuries and the invisible scars of brain trauma and post traumatic stress disorder. Tom ensured that the department devoted the same level of care for these younger men and women as it did veterans from earlier conflicts.

When I served in the State legislature, and as a member of the Veterans and Federal Affairs Committee, I worked closely with Tom on many issues and was always inspired by his energy and passion for helping his fellow veterans.

Tom served under Republican and Democrat Governors and ensured that the department remained focused on providing outstanding service to Massachusetts' veterans. I have no doubt that Tom Kelley will always be regarded as an extremely effective and dedicated secretary of veterans' affairs.

Tonight, Tom will receive a fitting farewell at a bipartisan gala, all the proceeds of which will go to the Massachusetts Soldiers Legacy Fund. And it comes as no surprise that the guest of honor insisted on purchasing his own ticket.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor The ALLY Foundation, an inspirational organization in Massachusetts. In the summer of 2002, a young woman named Alexandra ``Ally'' Zapp walked into a fast food restaurant's restroom in Massachusetts and was brutally murdered.

Soon after Ally's death, her parents learned that the man who killed Ally was not just an employee of the restaurant but an extremely dangerous sexual predator with 24 previous criminal convictions, including rape and kidnapping.

Ally's mother, Andrea Casanova, and stepfather, Steven Stiles, turned their anger to resolve and their sadness to hope and founded The ALLY Foundation. The ALLY Foundation is dedicated to changing the way our society deals with sexual predators and educating policymakers, employers, and the general public on sexual violence. Their work initially involved learning all they could about sexual violence, poring over research, attending conferences, and interviewing dozens of experts. Andrea soon became an expert herself and a compelling presence at sex offender management conferences.

Andrea and Steve's tireless research confirms that current criminal statutes and incarceration guidelines as they pertain to sexual violence often go unenforced and are at best inconsistent. There are an estimated 600,000 sex offenders in the country and authorities have not accounted for as many as 100,000 offenders.

The ALLY Foundation does more than merely raise awareness of a problem; they're helping to solve it. Within 2 years of Ally's murder, The ALLY Foundation had already made a significant impact on public policy, including helping to pass Massachusetts's sexually dangerous commitment law--known as the Ally Zapp Law--to keep sex offenders predators off the street after they complete their criminal sentence.

Ally's tragic death and countless other attacks were the result of a legal

system largely unequipped to handle the unique dynamics of sexual predation. Ally's killer should never have been free, let alone work around the general public.

In less than a decade, The ALLY Foundation has had a profound impact on public policy. It is impossible to know how many lives have been saved or how many were spared the physical and emotional scars of sexual abuse and violence. But the fact remains that thanks to The ALLY Foundation, public officials and employers are far better educated and equipped to enact laws and adjust policies to reflect the unique nature of sexual violence. I commend Andrea and Steve for all they do.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize Robert McCarthy of Watertown, MA, who is retiring after 23 years as president of the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts. As a fire fighter, Bob McCarthy fought to save lives and property from fires and accidents. As head of the PFFM, Bob fought to protect and defend his 12,000 PFFM brothers and sisters.

Thanks to his leadership, the Commonwealth's professional fire fighters are healthier, safer, better equipped and better trained. And of course, better equipped, better trained fire fighters mean increased public safety.

For Bob McCarthy, fire fighting came naturally; you might say it was in his blood. Like his father and grandfather before him, Bob was a Watertown fireman, rising through the ranks to become captain of the Watertown Fire Department. When he retired from actively fighting fires, he dedicated his life to fighting for his fellow firemen.

Bob McCarthy served as the union's legislative agent for 2 years before being elected president of the PFFM in 1987. As president, Bob was a highly effective advocate for Massachusetts' professional fire fighters. Believe me; as soon as an issue arose that impacted his members, it was usually about thirty seconds before my office phone rang.

I would like to note just a few of Bob McCarthy's many accomplishments as president of the PFFM. Bob McCarthy was a major force in the passage of a cancer presumption law which protects firefighters for 5 additional years after they retire. He worked diligently to maintain laws pertaining to fire fighters' heart and lung health and to preserve grants for better safety gear. He played a major role in funding critical incident stress management for the fire service. And one of his greatest legacies are the biennial educational seminars which play a vital role in ensuring that Massachusetts' professional fire fighters receive ongoing education on the latest safety issues.

Bob McCarthy hasn't limited his service to fire fighters; he was also a valued member of numerous boards of directors of leading firms and organizations in my State. It is hard to gauge just how many people's lives he has not only impacted but actually saved. All too often the focus is on what is lost in fires. What goes unreported is what professional firefighters save. Not only thousands of lives and homes, but pets and items of sentimental value.

Bob leaves the PFFM in the very able hands of Mr. Ed Kelly who was sworn in as president last month. This evening, the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts will celebrate Bob's 26 years of service to his community at their annual dinner. I join their 12,000 members in honoring Bob McCarthy for his service to the PFFM and my Commonwealth, and wish Bob and his wife Dorothy all the very best in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I enjoyed the previous speaker's presentation. I come to the floor to talk about the ongoing negotiations between the White House, Speaker Boehner, and my colleagues in the Senate regarding the appropriations for the current fiscal year.

Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, the House and Senate have been trying to find common ground to finish the appropriations for fiscal year 2011. Instead of reaching a long-term compromise, we passed no fewer than six short-term continuing resolutions.

Not only does that disrupt our military men and women who are trying to serve but also every other facet of government and people's lives throughout this country. The funding resolutions that provide little in the way of addressing our staggering deficit have little certainty with our trading partners and absolutely no certainty whatsoever to the world market in terms of our ability to manage our Nation's finances.

Sadly, rather than reaching a workable, bipartisan solution, responsibly addressing our staggering deficit, which is expected to reach $1.5 trillion this fiscal year, our leaders have repeatedly given us false choices between continuing resolution proposals that don't go far enough to reduce Federal spending and proposals that I believe establish the wrong priorities for me and my State and many other people as well throughout this Chamber.

I believe many of the choices that were made disproportionately affect low-income families and seniors. One of my Senate colleagues, if you remember, characterized this process as a ``Hobson's choice.'' I agree. The world right now is looking for two things--the world markets, financial markets--and the people who invest in this country are looking for two things. They want us to do a lean and mean budget, get our fiscal and financial priorities in line now. They are also looking for us to tackle entitlements, whether it is military, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, et cetera. Then they will know that, in fact, they can invest here.

When they invest, the money will be safe and they are actually going to get a good return. When Pimco doesn't even do more bonding with America, that is a sign. When we have other countries throughout the world being downgraded by the bonding services, it is a problem. We are in this financial kind of roll to negativity. We have to get our fiscal and financial house in order right away.

I have been absolutely disappointed, and I know everybody listening in the gallery and those watching today have been absolutely disappointed by the pace of negotiations between the two Chambers. We have had FAA legislation. I want to fly in a safe plane. I get that. We have done the patent bill, and I want safe drugs and everything. I get that. We are on the small business bill now, and the Senator before me spoke--I am on the committee. I am happy to do it, and I get it. But are you kidding me? We are in the biggest financial mess we have ever been in, and we are doing everything but dealing with the financial mess.

Here we are with over a $14 trillion debt. For people listening, when I came here, we had an $11.5 trillion national debt. Now it is over $14.3 trillion and counting. The deficit, unfortunately--despite passing six different CRs and an understanding that passing it would move our negotiations further along, we are once again faced with the likelihood of a government shutdown.

I never, ever thought I would be a Senator from Massachusetts and come here and say: Oh, my gosh, I was here when they shut down the government. What do I tell the staff and the people back home? I am not going to participate in that. I am going to be a problem solver. If you are liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat--I don't care what your party is--I am going to find solutions to try to avoid any type of government shutdown. I don't want one. Nobody I am talking to wants one.

We have to get these negotiations in perspective. We have to actually express to our leaders, as I just did, that, hey, we are concerned. I want to make sure we tackle these issues.

While the Federal budget is only a small part, gosh, I can't tell you--and Senator Carper is here. How many times have we been in committee hearings and they are talking about wasting billions and billions of dollars--$76 billion just through one program that we are attacking.

I was in the military budget hearing the other day. It is $104 billion over budget for one weapon system. Are you kidding me? Really? It is phenomenal.

We are debating cutting, I guess, $61 billion, give or take, but we don't have a problem with going over budget $100-plus billion in various programs and wasting billions of other dollars. So, on one hand, we are fighting about a small, minute part of what we are doing, and on the other hand, we are giving away the money.

There was just a report that came out that said we are wasting billions of dollars on duplication. Executive order No. 1: Let's fix it so we don't have to worry about that, and that money we save can be used for seniors, kids, Pell grants, and all of the things people are fighting about right now. I will say, however, a government shutdown absolutely serves no purpose and is in nobody's best interest--not our country's, not the workers', and it is not in the global economy's best interest.

I, for one, stand ready to work with any Senator or any Congressman or member of the administration who wants to get together and solve these very real problems. However, I am encouraged about the recent developments in the negotiations, which was the news breaking yesterday that a possible deal is close. That is great. They are talking about $33 billion. I just cited $104 billion in one military program. In Medicare, $76 billion goes out every year just because--I am happy doing it, but the world is looking for that fix, the lean and mean budget, but also for us to get entitlement reform, eliminate the waste and abuse--commonsense things that every person in this Chamber and everybody listening does in their homes and businesses.

Why can't we treat the Federal Government like a business for once? This makes no sense to me. I am not the new guy anymore. You are the new guy, Mr. President. Congratulations for being the Presiding Officer today. Being the new guy, I hope you agree with me that we have to kind of work together--and we have tried to do that, you and I, Senator Carper, and others--to try to find that common ground. I think we agree on the number. It is just a question of do we tackle it here or there.

I am from the approach of let's do a little of everything and satisfy every special interest and political interest and just get the problem solved. It will take real choices, tough choices right now. Everybody listening now absolutely understands that everything is on the table. We have to be fair and judicious in our cuts. How do we go from A to Z overnight? There is no transition period or no consideration for jobs, and, actually, the safety of people in some of these cuts.

I stand ready to work with each of you to do what it takes and put politics aside. Listen, is there an election this year? I don't think so, because I am looking at 2011 right now--2011, as the one year, the one chance we have to actually solve problems, folks. In 2012, we can do whatever we do in the political season. I get it. For right now, we have a great opportunity to send a message to all those folks who say Washington is broken. In Washington, it is like, you are great, you are great, everybody is great. Senator Carper is great. He is one of my best friends here. But, listen, outside Washington, they have no clue what we are doing. They don't trust us or think we are addressing the real problems that affect our great country.

Our collective work begins by having a clear understanding of the seriousness of our budget concerns. I know we have had bipartisan meetings. I am so encouraged, as a relatively new Member, that we have had about 60, 65 people come together to hear the number. Is it fact, fiction, or real? What is it?

We agree we are in trouble. So why aren't all the leaders of this great country--and there is plenty of blame to go around--getting together and seriously letting us know what the priorities are? Why doesn't the President call my office, or anybody else, and say: Scott, these are my priorities. I challenge you to work with me to get them done.

What are his priorities for cuts? Does anybody up there know? I don't know. If he called you or me, I know we would give him the respect the office deserves, and we would go out and say: I will work with my colleagues, Mr. President, or Mr. Leader, or Mr. Minority Leader, and we will find those common things we can do. We can start with the report that just came out and eliminate all that duplication. In some instances, I think it was 26 agencies doing the same thing. Are you kidding me?

I believe the responsibility we have been given is huge. Look at these young people. A lot of them came to the charity basketball game we had last night. It was so exciting to see their faces. They are excited to be here. Every one of them is saying: Oh, my gosh, I have been in the Senate, working for these people. We look up to them, and we expect them to do better and be better. They challenge us on a daily basis just by those bright eyes, the fact they are out back studying when they have a few minutes--some more than others, I might add--and they are looking for us to solve problems. It is really not even them we are worried about; it is their great-grandchildren.

If we do nothing--is that what you want us to do, folks, nothing? I am not going to be part of the do-nothing caucus. I am going to look to find commonsense solutions and work toward commonsense goals, regardless of the outcome. If I lose, whatever, but I will have played a role in history. Right now, at this time, we need to make a difference, a change.

I am so hopeful and I am an optimist. I believe we can do it better. I believe we have an opportunity to do it better right now. With our leadership and that of the other Senators who are going to be here soon, we can get together and solve the problems. We can battle in 2012. The country is looking at us now to make a difference. I hope we will find the ability to do so. If we don't, then we will have missed a great opportunity to solve problems.

Thank you. I appreciate the Chair's patience and his occasional smirks.

I yield the floor.

It was a good smirk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I rise in support, strong support of the SBIR bill. As many of you know, the SBIR bill and the STTR Programs provide vital resources to small businesses, not only in Massachusetts but throughout the country. This reauthorization is incredibly important to not only businesses in my State but businesses in everybody's State.

This compromise bill has been under development and negotiation long before I got here. I applaud Senators Landrieu and Snowe, our chair and ranking member on the Small Business Committee, for their persistence in pushing this bill through. As a matter of fact, I have two amendments that are in the bill that is before us now. I will be offering, not today but in the near future, an amendment which I am about to talk about.

As a small business owner myself for many years, and a longstanding member of many Chambers of Commerce, I believe the Massachusetts small businesses and businesses throughout this country are the economic engine that will help get us out of this economic slowdown we are in. They have the potential to grow, to expand and hire, unlike many businesses throughout the country. Massachusetts is widely regarded as the center for innovation in biotechnology. We are a small State but we have received the most SBIR awards, only after California. That goes to show how important our State is when it comes to creating small businesses. The success of the SBIR Program serves as a reminder that government can play a role in the business community. But it also needs to know when to step out of the way and allow businesses to grow and actually create jobs.

I want to speak about an amendment I filed, amendment No. 212. It is based on S. 164, the Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2011, which enjoys bipartisan support and is critically needed now. The ranking member of the Small Business Committee, Senator Snowe, is a cosponsor. I am looking forward to getting many other cosponsors and working very closely with the chair on this timely piece of legislation.

We need once and for all to repeal an onerous and costly unfunded mandate that directly affects businesses, not only in my State but throughout the country. This is a jobs amendment, plain and simple. It would repeal part of our Tax Code that absolutely promises to kill jobs, jobs that these young people up here could someday have. If we do not act soon, section 3042(t) would require, beginning January 12, Federal, State, and local governments to withhold 3 percent of nearly all contract payments made to private companies as well as Medicare payments, farm payments, and certain grants. It is an arbitrary tax and it is nearly impossible to actually implement it. It is one of the things we have done that makes absolutely no sense. It has been delayed many times.

The Government Withholding Relief Coalition, a coalition of more than 100 members encompassing a cross section of America, has estimated the combined total 5-year cost to the State and Federal Government of implementing this legislation could be as high as $75 billion.

That makes a lot of sense? That $75 billion is coming out of those coffers at a time we can least afford it, and it is estimated only to bring in about $7 billion over that same time period. It makes absolutely no sense. It is absurd. Any tax that costs more to implement than it actually brings in makes no sense at all. I hope with your leadership and many other Senators' leadership on this issue we can attack these bad laws that are about to click in. It should be repealed immediately. As a matter of fact, last week I received a letter from Massachusetts State Secretary of Finance Jay Gonzalez, warning Congress of the inevitable threat to small businesses' ability to survive in this tough economic climate if we allow the continuation of what I consider a stealth tax. We cannot discuss the health of small businesses on the floor without acknowledging that these very same small businesses we aim to help with the SBIR Program, the bill before us now, will be suffocated by this 3-percent withholding tax. For some businesses it may be the entire net profit of what they make per year.

I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from Secretary Gonzales printed in the Record.

The Department of Defense alone has estimated this provision will cost about $17 billion to comply with over the first 5 years. Unfortunately, there are many other provisions and reasons why this provision should be repealed as soon as possible. At a time when State and local governments are under extreme fiscal and financial stress, why? I don't get it. Why would we actually start to put in and enforce another unfunded, costly mandate on them to recover minimal funds for the Federal Treasury? This is a question of the Federal Government seeking more funds to pay its bills. Only in Washington--and I have been here a little over a year, very similar to what the Presiding Officer has--only in Washington can they try to convey that something like this is good when they actually spend $10 of everybody's money, nearly, to recoup a dollar. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

Many businesses that contract with the government will simply pass this provision on, as we know, back to the government in the form of higher bids on contracts. So having a bid on a contract here, when this particular tax is implemented--it is going to be here and is ultimately going to cost every single one of us more money to do the same thing.

I listen to the administration, I listen to all the political pundits, I listen to everybody talk about the fact that we need to get our fiscal and financial house in order. We are in trouble fiscally. This country, if we do not do something quickly, is going to be in deep trouble. Here we are. We have an unfunded mandate, something that is going to add to the cost of doing business, and here we are. Are we going to take it up and vote on it? I hope we do. I am looking forward to the bipartisan leadership from the Presiding Officer and others on this very important issue.

Many businesses that contract with the government, as I said, will merely pass this on. It will crush them and restrict a critical cashflow and discourage them from participating in government contracts. They will go other places.

Members of the construction industry are also worried that the provision will tax away all of their anticipated profit on government contracts, hence diminishing competition and actually raising costs to the government at a time we cannot afford it.

This provision passed in 2005, long before we got here--but we, as the new breed of Senators, recognize we need to get our house in order. There is a reason the implementation of this has been delayed over and over. Everyone knows it can never go into effect. We will be back on the floor later this session, because we need to repeal this tax. We can do it in the next weeks. I appreciate the effort of the majority leader to now include us in the amendment process so we can actually be part of the process and come up with new ideas, from new people, to look at things in a different way and actually solve problems. That is what this amendment offers. I plan to offer it. I welcome everybody's support.

Before I conclude, I want to wish everybody a happy St. Patrick's Day and I appreciate your listening.

I yield the floor.