Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 5, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Legislative Proposals in the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's FY 2012 Budget.''

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 5, 2011, at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Stolen Identities: The Impact of Racist Stereotypes on Indigenous People.''

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 5, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery and Intergovernmental Affairs of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 5, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Understanding the Power of Social Media as a Communication Tool in the Aftermath of Disasters.''

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``First, Do Not Harm: Improving Health Quality and Patient Safety'' on May 5, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 5, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Assessing U.S. Policy and its Limits in Pakistan.''

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 5, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 5, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, it has been nearly 3 years since gas prices were as high as they are now. Back in July 2008, they peaked at about $4 per gallon. We are approaching $4 per gallon for gas today. The average price in Minnesota is $3.94 per gallon, and the peak driving season is right around the corner. Back in 2008, I heard from many Minnesotans--from seniors who couldn't afford to drive to their pharmacies to pick up their prescription drugs, from workers who couldn't afford to drive to work, from middle-class moms and dads who had to cancel their summer vacations--who couldn't go up north because gasoline was just too high for their budgets. Although it wasn't the only factor, these high fuel prices of 3 years ago helped to push our economy into a deep recession. We don't want that to happen again. One of the things we learned 3 years ago is that rising oil prices were not simply the result of supply-and-demand market factors. In fact, the dramatic runup in gas prices was due in part to rampant price speculation by people who had no business being in the oil market. These were not airlines or trucking companies or other businesses that actually need and use oil and gas and who trade in futures in order to protect their businesses against volatility in the oil market. No, the most frenzied price speculation was by Wall Street traders and hedge fund managers who would never actually touch a drop of oil. They would never use it in their businesses. To them it was just numbers on a computer screen. They were trying to game the system to make some quick profits and then take the money and run, all at the expense of those people in Minnesota or Ohio who are standing there at the gas pump watching those numbers add up. It is interesting; if we take a look at the gas prices in Minnesota back in 2008--we can, in fact, find it on MinnesotaGasPrices.com-- between July and the end of the year, prices dropped from $4 to $1.60 per gallon. Numerous experts have concluded that underlying supply-and- demand fundamentals can't account for the sharp rise or decline in prices. For example, in the first 6 months of 2008, U.S. economic output was declining while global supply was increasing. But when we look at the cost of oil during that time, it just doesn't match up. In June of 2007, oil cost $65 per barrel. A year later, in June of 2008, it reached $147 per barrel. It was down to $30 in December of 2008 and back up to $72 in June of 2009. Even if supply and demand were, over the long run, pushing up the price of oil, that alone couldn't explain the massive volatility in the market. Looking back, we now know much of the dramatic decline in oil prices was the result of Wall Street speculators fleeing the oil market because the spotlight had finally been put on them. In other words, the heat was on, and it got too hot for them to stay. But here we are today, 3 years later, and the price of a gallon of gas is nearly $1 higher than it was 10 months ago. Once again, I am hearing from Minnesotans who are being squeezed by high prices-- families, farmers, and businesses large and small. There is no doubt some of these prices can be attributed to reduced production from countries such as Libya and Egypt. There is no doubt we can increase domestic production of oil, whether in North Dakota, our neighboring State, where they literally have doubled their production of oil over the last few years, or in Louisiana. Increased domestic production takes time and, in any case, the impact on prices would not necessarily change things--nowhere near what we are seeing right now due to speculation. That is why a few months ago I wrote to Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler urging him to make swift and strong implementation of speculation limits that were included in the Wall Street reform legislation we passed last year. This legislation authorizes the commission to impose limits on the size of speculative positions in oil futures markets by investors who are not bona fide oil traders. These ``position limits'' are designed to limit market manipulation and make sure the oil market is operating fairly according to supply and demand. We don't want to see Wall Street speculators further drive up oil prices in the coming months. We also know short-term solutions will only go so far. That is why I have been focused on a long-term energy strategy, a strategy that will provide incentives for our innovators, investors, and entrepreneurs to invest in solutions for our energy future. In 2008, I helped push through the Commerce Committee, along with a number of my colleagues, the first update to our fuel economy standards in decades. These rules, which are now in place, are expected to save 1.8 billion barrels of oil, about three times as much as Libya produces every year. I am also continuing to work on policies that will increase our homegrown energy production. It is important to note that studies suggest that biofuels can provide relief at the pump. A recent study from the University of Iowa indicates that from 2000 to 2010 competition from ethanol reduced wholesale gasoline prices by an average of 25 cents per gallon, saving American consumers an average of $34.5 billion each year. During the gasoline price runup in 2010, the impact of ethanol on gasoline prices was substantially larger, reducing gasoline prices by a national average of 89 cents per gallon and by $1.37 per gallon in the Midwest. Biofuels are the largest and best alternative to imported oil. In fact, we produce more biofuels in this country than we import gasoline from Canada, our largest source of foreign imports. That is why in March I introduced new legislation with Senator Tim Johnson that would significantly boost our Nation's biofuels production and biofuels infrastructure while also providing long-term standards for increasing renewable energy production and major energy efficiency improvements. First, our bill would provide consumers with more choices at the gas pump by expanding biofuels infrastructure and increasing alternative fuel vehicles. Specifically, it would expand the availability of blender pumps that are capable of dispensing different blends of ethanol and gasoline. It would provide loan guarantees to build new biofuels pipelines and would also require half of the cars produced in 2015 to be flex-fuel vehicles--natural gas-powered, electric-powered, or hybrid vehicles. Second, to help offset costs, the bill would phase down and eventually phase out the ethanol tax credit. This credit is serving its purpose of helping to reduce the price of gasoline and reducing our dependence on foreign oil by providing consumers choices at the gas pump. But it won't be necessary forever. Lastly, the bill would create the first national standards for renewable energy and energy efficiency along the lines of Minnesota's 25-percent-by-2025 standard and a 1-percent annual improvement in efficiency. If I could note, our State has an unemployment rate that is significantly below the national average--two points below the national average. A lot of that has to do with our farm economy, a lot has to do with our innovative companies, but we have done it all with a renewable standard in place--25 percent by 2025. We have done it all with a significant push on ethanol and biofuels and wind and solar. So I say this can be a model for the rest of the country. Our Nation as a whole has an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent. Gas prices are approaching record levels. We continue to send $730 million a day to foreign countries--many of which have been known to funnel money to terrorists--to meet our basic fuel needs. That is $730 million a day for fuel that we send to other countries. I think we should be investing in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast. But whether it is biofuels plants in the Midwest, electric car factories across this country, electric car battery factories in the Chair's home State of Ohio, that is the future. It is not continuing to send millions of dollars a day to the Mideast. Each of the provisions in this bill have some support from both Republicans and Democrats, and I am hopeful the bipartisan spirit of this bill can help advance a serious bipartisan discussion about thoughtful solutions to rising gas prices. The key is that everyone needs to realize that inaction is not an option; that bumper sticker slogans will only result in our kicking the can down the road. This is about putting sensible limits on speculation that doesn't affect legitimate companies that are legitimately hedging their risks. This is about a comprehensive energy plan for the future that includes drilling in Minnesota and other parts of the country but also includes natural gas, includes hydro, includes geothermal and wind and solar and biofuels. That is what this is about. If we learned anything from Japan--and I support nuclear energy in this country, and I think that should be in the mix as well--it is that we don't want to rely too much on any one source of energy. This idea of looking regionally and looking across the country at different sources of energy is key as we go forward. During these challenging economic times, we can no longer put our heads in the sand and pretend this isn't happening. Talk to anyone who is filling up their car at the pump now. Talk to anyone who wants to go to their cabin in northern Minnesota for the summer every weekend. They will tell you it does matter. Now is the time to act. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise to speak about the daunting fiscal challenges our country faces and the urgent need for comprehensive bipartisan action to address our crushing debt burden. I have long believed we need to get serious about the deficit. Since I came to the Senate, I have worked to reform the way Congress conducts our own business, reducing the budget of Congress, fighting for appropriations project reform, and working to restore our pay-as-you-go rules and the budget process to ensure we are only funding new programs if outdated or duplicative programs are cut. I was one of a handful who fought for the creation of the fiscal commission, and I have supported efforts by both Republicans and Democrats to responsibly reduce the deficit. We wouldn't have even had the commission that worked all this past year and came up with a report that many people thought would just collect dust on the shelf, but that hasn't been the case. That is because a number of Senators last year said: We are not going to take this anymore. The country can't take this anymore. We will stand up and make sure the deficit commission gets started. We are going to make sure we get strong people on the commission, which was achieved, and that they produce something that is meaningful. Right now as we speak, a number of our colleagues, a small group of six, are working on the results from that commission report, and we are hopeful they will come together in a bipartisan agreement. Last year, I supported the efforts of my colleagues, Senators Sessions and McCaskill, to enact discretionary spending caps. While this proposal could not by itself balance the budget, restraining discretionary spending growth is an important piece of the puzzle and will result in real budget savings. I voted with Senator Coburn to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal spending by consolidating duplicative government programs and supported Senator Bennet's successful effort to rescind $180 billion in unused TARP funds to pay down the deficit. In the first 4 months of this year, I have supported $12 billion in cuts and have pushed for many more. These are all important steps. What our country needs now is for Congress to reach across the aisle and build consensus around a comprehensive, long-term deficit reduction package that will put us on track to prosperity. Ever since the economic downturn, families across the country have huddled around the kitchen table making tough choices about what they hold most dear and what they can learn to live without. They expect and deserve that their leaders do the same. The American people are counting on us to put politics aside, to pull together and not pull apart, to not go to the opposite corners of the boxing ring and simply throw darts at each other. They expect us to agree on a plan to live within our means and make America strong for the long haul. If we are going to succeed in this challenge, we will ultimately have to accept what we do not necessarily agree with in an effort to develop a plan that is both balanced and comprehensive. We already know much about what will need to be done. Our failure to act has not been because we lack solutions but because Congress has lacked the political will to get behind proposals that on their own sometimes are not always that popular. I support the work being done by my colleagues, Senators Warner, Chambliss, Durbin, Crapo, Coburn, and Conrad, and look forward to working with them to put forward a serious, comprehensive deficit proposal. Tomorrow, the President will be laying out his recommendations for a comprehensive deficit reduction package. Much of the recent debate over deficit reduction has been dominated by talk of how best to cut programs that millions of American seniors and the most vulnerable in our society rely on every day. While I believe entitlement reforms must be a part of a comprehensive solution, I believe there are also several other key steps we can take to address our deficit in a meaningful way. As you know, Madam President, we started down the road of entitlement reform with some of the efficiency measures we put in for Medicare. Those can be expanded. I know my State has always delivered high- quality low-cost health care, and we need to do that in more of the country when it comes to Medicare. With Social Security, there are some excellent ideas to strengthen Social Security, to make it more solvent. I think we need to look at those, but we have to make very clear we will not be balancing this budget on the backs of seniors but that with any measures we take to reform Social Security, those savings will go directly into Social Security--not to be used to reduce the deficit--to make Social Security stronger in the long term. That is what we need to do. I think the rest of the world, when they look at these kinds of ideas and the measures we can take, will say: Do you know what. America is getting it back together. It is not stealing from other parts of the budget paying for Social Security. It is actually making Social Security stronger by finding a way to make it last longer and be there for our seniors today as well as seniors for the future. Now, I want to talk about a few of the steps I think we could take and I hope will be included in the President's suggestions and in the deficit commission report. First, we need to get serious about making our government work more efficiently by reducing programs that have become duplicative or outdated. Last month, the Government Accountability Office released a report that identified 82 different programs with similar descriptions in 10 different agencies for roads and trains, 47 for training and employment, and 56 to help people understand finances. The recommendations laid out in this report could save hundreds of billions of dollars, not by making Draconian cuts, not by taking drastic measures, but simply by eliminating waste. There are plenty of other examples of savings we could find right here in Washington, with Congress and with our Federal agencies. To begin, we could eliminate billions of dollars in waste in Federal contracts. How? By ending the practice of giving bonuses to government contractors who overcharge and underperform. By requiring Federal agencies to set strong standards for awarding contract bonuses-- standards that reward contractors based on the quality of their work and their ability to meet deadlines--we could save $8 billion. We could cut back on unnecessary costs in the Federal Government's day-to-day spending, such as printing expenses. Civilian Federal employees spend an estimated $1.3 billion on office printing every year, and it is estimated that $440 million of that printing is ``unnecessary.'' If we could cut that $440 million in waste alone on the unnecessary printing, we could save $4.4 billion over 10 years. Then there is the $4 billion we spend on Federal vehicles every year. If we could cut that budget by 20 percent, we could save $800 million a year and $8 billion over 10 years. Additionally, the Federal Government is the largest property owner in the country, with an inventory of more than 1.2 million buildings and structures--some of it unused. It does not make sense for taxpayers to continue paying for upkeep of these properties when we could sell them or repurpose them to make them more efficient. We could capture $15 billion in savings on our deficit by selling properties that have been identified as excess and eliminating their upkeep costs. Obviously, I am not talking about all Federal properties, but these are properties that have been identified as excess. There are also a number of ways to cut waste from our health care spending. We should start by ending the giveaway to the pharmaceutical companies and allow for price negotiations with prescription drugs in Medicare Part D. Unfortunately, the ``noninterference'' clause in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit expressly prohibits Medicare from negotiating lower prices from pharmaceutical companies. This prohibition has imposed substantial and unnecessary costs on America's taxpayers and seniors who are paying excessive prices for prescription drugs. With Medicare barred from negotiating discounts, seniors face inflated prices for their medications, while the pharmaceutical industry gets a financial windfall. I am fighting to change that so our seniors can have access to their medicines at the lowest possible prices, and I have introduced a bill, along with Senators Begich and Blumenthal, that would allow for price negotiations. Allowing Medicare to directly negotiate these prices, as the Veterans' Administration does, could save us $240 billion over the next 10 years. We also need to take a more serious look at Medicare fraud. Law enforcement authorities estimate Medicare fraud costs taxpayers more than $60 billion every year. This means as much as 20 percent of total Medicare spending is lost to fraud each year. To help combat these types of fraud, I have introduced the IMPROVE Act--Improving Medicaid/Medicare Payment Policy for Reimbursement through Oversight and Efficiency--which would help deter fraud by requiring direct depositing of all payments made to providers under Medicaid and Medicare. These criminals scheme the system to rob American taxpayers of money that should be used to provide health care to those who need it most. We must put a stop to it. Putting an end to waste, fraud, and abuse is a critical step to save taxpayer dollars as we look for ways to make our health care system more efficient. But we need to continue to look for other ways to make our government and the way Washington works more efficient as well. I mentioned efforts to reduce duplicative programs in our government, but we should also take a close look at the different agencies. For example, we could cut $75 billion from our defense spending by restructuring our budget and increasing efficiency. Whether it is holding civilian workforce levels where they were in fiscal year 2010, which would save $13 billion, or making targeted changes to Pentagon missions and priorities, which would save $11 billion, or even just doing away with unnecessary studies and internal reports, which would save $1 billion, these cuts all add up. Secretary Gates has proposed and supports these cuts, and I believe they are necessary as we look for ways to streamline our government and reduce our deficit. When Secretary Gates says he does not need a certain type of a plane because he has another plane, I think we should listen to that as we look at how we are going to save money in this government. In addition to cuts in spending and efforts to streamline our government, we also need to take a serious look at revenues and ways we can streamline our Tax Code to pay down our debt and ensure that the United States remains competitive in this global world. Despite the fact that Federal revenue is at the lowest level as a percentage of GDP since 1946, our efforts last year to let the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans return to what they were under President Clinton were blocked even though it would save $690 billion over the next decade. You have said it, Madam President, for people making over $1 million--ror those people who make over $1 million a year, if you have their taxes set at the levels during the Clinton era--at a time when we were very prosperous--you would save nearly $400 billion in 10 years on the deficit. While not all my colleagues agree on how or even whether we should raise more revenue, every serious bipartisan proposal has made it a clear must. In the quarter century since the last comprehensive tax reform, the system has been riddled with expenditures that benefit special interests and hurt competitiveness. These expenditures add up quickly, costing us over $1 trillion a year. For example, despite oil and gas companies reporting record profits in recent years, they will receive an estimated $35 billion in tax breaks over the next decade. And there are many companies that attempt to evade our tax system altogether. Closing these loopholes could save tens of millions of dollars for American taxpayers. Expenditures such as these riddle the individual income Tax Code as well. One aspect that is worth looking at--and something near and dear to the heart of every American who owns a home--is the mortgage interest deduction. I have used it. Everyone I know who has bought a house has used it. Here is the deal. The deduction is expected to lower tax revenues by nearly $500 billion from 2010 to 2013. However, most of the benefits do not go to the middle class. So one idea--and this came out of the fiscal commission--is to make sure those benefits are firmly there for the middle class; that is, to set the credit at equal to 12 percent of interest payments on up to $500,000 of mortgage debt on principal residences. So here is what this means. If you buy a house for $1 million, you still get the mortgage deduction, but it is up to $500,000 in the value of the home. If you get a house for $300,000 or for $400,000, it is not going to change the mortgage deduction at all. But what does it do for taxpayers? Well, phased in slowly to protect the housing market, this proposal would save $400 billion or more over the next decade. By taking steps such as these, we can lower tax rates, broaden the base, simplify the Tax Code, and at the same time bring down the deficit. This will benefit working families and make America more competitive in the global economy. These ideas are just a few of the ideas that I believe warrant a closer look and should be considered as we look to reduce our Nation's deficit. Together, they represent at least $1 trillion in savings that could be included as part of a bipartisan, long-term deficit reduction plan, in addition to a lot of the work we have already done this year for spending cuts. We can look at some additional ideas for next year, and there are many, many more. These are just simply some I hope the President includes in his proposal and that the deficit commission includes as well. Tomorrow we will hear from the President, and I hope we hear a plan that reflects the challenges we face as a nation, that builds on the work of the fiscal commission, and that brings both parties to the table for a grownup debate. The sooner we can agree on a long-term package of smart cuts, the better for our economy and the better for our country. I am hoping we can put partisan differences aside to work on an agenda that strengthens our economy, promotes fiscal responsibility, and increases global competitiveness because if we refuse to have an honest conversation about this, if we insist on just using the debate as a vehicle for angry rhetoric and an excuse for taking cheap political shots, we will not just be doing ourselves a disservice and this institution a disservice, we will be cheating our children and our grandchildren out of knowing the America in which we grew up. The deficit is not just going to fix itself. We all know that. We all know we cannot just close our eyes, click our heels, and--poof--the debt goes away. In their report, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility wrote that ``every modest sacrifice we refuse to make today only forces far greater sacrifices of hope and opportunity upon the next generation.'' And they are right. The longer we wait, the more wrenching the choices become, the more we set ourselves up for becoming another Greece or Ireland and having a potential meltdown in our financial system. But do you know who is really going to be making the painful choices if we do not do anything right now? That is right, it is our kids and our kids' kids. Is this really the legacy we want to leave them? This is our challenge, and it will be a hard challenge to meet. But I am confident we can come together to make these tough choices to do what is right for our economy and to renew the American promise of progress and opportunity for generations to come. Thank you. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I first acknowledge my colleague from Oregon for his great leadership in this area. We look forward to working with him. He has taken an essential lead on this important matter. This has been a difficult time for all of us with some of the changes being made.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I have long believed we have to be serious about the deficit, and I was 1 of about 14 Senators who held back their vote on the debt ceiling last year to make sure we actually created the fiscal commission, which did very good work this year. That work is being taken by a small group of Democratic and Republican Senators to come up with long-term solutions for the debt. I strongly believe that is what we have to do. I also believe we have a responsibility to govern. Allowing a shutdown when we are this close in negotiations, when a number has been agreed upon and all it comes down to is a disagreement on politics, is just wrong. What makes this situation so troubling is that we have reached this standstill not over dollars at its essence but over politics that I don't believe have a place in the debate. With a bipartisan deal within reach, it would be irresponsible to shut down the government and punish our constituents solely to score political points. This impending shutdown has broad consequences. While we have now seen 13 straight months of private sector job growth, adding 1.8 million jobs in that time, the economy is still fragile. Everyone knows that in their own States. Too many Americans continue to struggle. According to an analysis from Goldman Sachs, a government shutdown will cost the economy around $8 billion per year or nearly .2 percent of GDP for each week of the shutdown, all because of a disagreement over social issues not over dollars--because last night there was actually agreement on the dollars. Economists and business leaders agree that a government shutdown at this time will hurt our recovery, hurt businesses, and slow economic growth. Even Speaker Boehner has admitted it will cost more than it saves. If a shutdown were to occur, the Small Business Administration would cease to process applications for business loan guarantees, curtailing lending to small businesses already squeezed by tight credit markets. Last year the Small Business Administration supported more than $212 billion in lending to small businesses through its two largest loan programs. At these levels we would see over $400 million a week in small business lending put on hold because of a shutdown. Our government also provides vital support for businesses seeking to export their products and services and conducting business abroad. The U.S. Commercial Service, a part of the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration, has offices and embassies and consulates in over 80 countries worldwide and utilizes its global network of trade professionals to connect U.S. companies with international buyers. Every year they help thousands of U.S. companies export goods and services worth billions of dollars. If the Federal Government shuts down, these services will end and sales and contracts will be lost. If we look at the shutdown in 1995, we can see evidence of how damaging a disruption of services like these can be. During that shutdown, approximately $2.2 billion in U.S. exports couldn't leave the country because the Department of State and the Bureau of Export Administration were unable to issue export licenses. Finally, I wish to make a point about visas since I chair the Subcommittee on Export Promotion, Competitiveness and Innovation, which includes tourism. During the last shutdown, approximately 20,000 to 30,000 applications by foreigners for foreign tourist visas were unprocessed each day, and the U.S. tourist industries and airlines reportedly sustained millions of dollars in losses. With the average foreign visitor spending over $4,000 per visit, it is easy to see how fast these losses add up for businesses. These are just a few examples, but the sum total will be much greater. I am on a bill with Senator Casey and Senator Hutchison to continue funding our troops. Of course, we will do that; of course, they should get their paychecks. But let's look at what this shutdown would do on a day-to-day basis to provide some perspective. In northwestern Minnesota, volunteers are taking time off from their jobs and from school to help fill sand bags and build temporary levees as we watch the Red River of the north rise to its eventual crest. The flood fight takes all hands on deck in North Dakota and Minnesota, with local, State, and Federal Government working together to protect these communities. Earlier this week, to help in this fight, Governor Dayton declared a state of emergency for 46 Minnesota counties. North Dakota has also been declared a state of emergency. FEMA has said it will have all the resources it would need to maintain its capabilities during a shutdown. However, if the Federal Government closes its doors, FEMA will not be able to process in a timely manner paperwork and applications that Minnesotans will be submitting for assistance once the waters recede. I have been through these flood fights before. The whole community comes together. The whole community fights that flood. They take days and days and days. Some of them have lost their houses, and they are still out there helping their fellow citizens. I see that and I wonder to myself: And we in this body and in this Congress can't come together when we are this close, when there actually was agreement on a number last night. We can't come together while these volunteers across the Red River are coming together on a flood fight? That is absurd. I urge my colleagues who are holding this up to reconsider their all- or-nothing stance so we can move forward with the real work that must be done. A setback now would simply prevent the growth needed to address our country's long-term fiscal imbalances. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I regret that a commitment in Minnesota has prevented me from being able to cast my vote in support of Mr. Jimmie V. Reyna's confirmation to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. I believe that Mr. Reyna has the stellar qualifications, intellectual capability, temperament and integrity that are the hallmarks of our finest federal judges. Had I been present this evening, I would have cast my vote in support of Mr. Reyna. I had the pleasure of being introduced to Mr. Reyna last year by Peter Reyes, a constituent of mine who is an intellectual property lawyer and a leader in the Minnesota Hispanic Bar Association. Upon meeting Mr. Reyna, it was easy to see what the American Bar Association later confirmed when it unanimously gave him the highest possible rating for a judicial nominee: he is well qualified. I know that Mr. Reyna's three decades of experience in private practice focusing on international trade issues will serve him well given the Federal circuit's unique jurisdiction. I congratulate Mr. Reyna on his confirmation.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to honor the memory of a caring and charismatic business icon and decorated Navy veteran. Alfred Schwan, who passed away on March 18, 2011, helped found a small, all-American family business with his brothers Marvin and Robert and built The Schwan Food Company to what it is today--a successful, frozen-food company with thousands of employees and millions of customers Alfred was known as an adventurous and outgoing person who had a quick smile, relentless energy and a can-do attitude. Alfred started in the frozen food business early. Born in 1925 to Paul and Alma Schwan, as a young man he helped his father at the Marshall Ice Cream Company make popsicles and ice cream bars. But Alfred did not go straight into the family business. He left to fulfill a dream and serve his country as a pilot and joined the U.S. Naval Aviation Corps. Alfred flew torpedo bombers and taught anti- submarine warfare. He met his wife Doris during a blind date at a USO Club. They married in 1946, the same year Alfred was awarded Navy Wings of Gold. A year later they had their first of five sons. Answering a call from his family, Alfred joined the family business in 1964 to oversee factory operations and company drivers. Those company yellow trucks have become beloved across the nation. I know I remember fondly seeing the yellow Schwan truck in my neighborhood. With a commitment to integrity and hard work, Alfred went on to oversee the Schwan pizza business. He guided the production of Schwan pizza in their plant in Salina, KS, for three decades while also overseeing plants in Kentucky and Texas and in my home State of Minnesota. He used his flying skills to crisscross the Nation on behalf of Schwan--becoming the company's first aviation department. After the death of his brother Marvin, Alfred was appointed CEO, president and chairman of Schwan in 1993. He retired as chairman in 2009 at the age of 83. Among the many public honors this inspirational and ever optimistic leader received includes being honored by the School Nutrition Association of Kansas as an Outstanding Industry Member of the Year and induction into the Frozen Food Hall of Fame as well as receiving Schwan's most prestigious honor--the Marvin M. Schwan Heritage of Quality Award. It is appropriate to honor Alfred's passing as March is National Frozen Food Month. He gave his energy passionately to this important industry. With more than 700 facilities nationwide, the frozen food industry employs nearly 100,000 Americans in the manufacturing sector alone, generating a payroll of approximately $3 billion. My home State of Minnesota is home to Schwan's headquarters and over 7,500 jobs in frozen food. Alfred was such an important leader and citizen of Minnesota when he retired Marshall, Minnesota declared January 29, ``Alfred Schwan Day.'' During Frozen Food Month, it is important to take a moment to remember all-American entrepreneurs and inventors like Alfred Schwan and Clarence Birdseye--an American inventor--who ushered in a food revolution in 1930 when his line of frozen foods first hit grocery stores. Few other food choices provide consumers with the benefits and flexibility offered by frozen foods. I imagine Alfred and Clarence had a lot in common. On behalf of all Americans, I thank Alfred Schwan for his service to our country and to U.S. consumers. Frozen foods are a staple in American homes, office lunch rooms and school cafeterias. They provide an important source of healthy, affordable and convenient food choices that will continue to help feed our Nation and the world. It is appropriate that we take a moment to recognize the passing of a great innovator and pioneer this Frozen Food Month.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Senate votes on H.R. 1 and Inouye amendment No. 149 regarding spending levels for the remainder of this fiscal year. I opposed H.R. 1 because it called for severe cuts with little or no thought to the economic consequences. By cutting programs that support our seniors and veterans, as well as programs that contribute to our economic activity, H.R. 1 would have jeopardized our economic recovery at a critical time. I voted for the necessary spending cuts included in the Inouye amendment because I saw it as a start, not an end. I believe additional cuts are needed to address our fiscal challenges. I am very supportive of the bipartisan negotiations that are taking place for a longer term comprehensive deficit reduction plan and I would like us to move forward with the more difficult task of addressing our long-term fiscal challenges.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time on both sides be yielded back.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first wanted to alert Senators that we will most likely be voting somewhere around 5:30. We are still working on an agreement about yielding back time, but I thought people would like to know that. The other thing I wish to note is to first urge my colleagues to confirm the judges before us tonight, and then I wish also to briefly say a few words about the third vote we are going to be taking in this sequence.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be 10-minute votes.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his strong statement of support for the America Invents Act, a bill that is, at its heart, all about moving our economy forward. When we think about the brass tacks of our country, we think about ideas, we think about inventions. It was our inventors who developed the light bulb, the assembly line, the Internet, the iPod, and, of course, my 15-year- old daughter's favorite invention, Facebook. This all came from our great country. I wish to comment, briefly--I know Senator Rockefeller has an important issue to talk about, the issue we have just been discussing. First of all, we have heard from stakeholders from across the spectrum--from high tech and life sciences to universities and small inventors--in support of the transition to the first-to-file system. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of supporters of the transition to the first-to-file system that is contained in the America Invents Act.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I know Senator Bingaman is here to speak.