Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank Senator Lieberman.

I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of tens of thousands of Delawareans affected by domestic violence each year, as well as their families, their friends, and their allies across our State and our country.

Just a few minutes ago, my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee took up the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. It has earned strong bipartisan support through the nearly two decades since its original passage, and it was voted out earlier today.

Law enforcement agencies across this country are counting on us to move forward with the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, depending on the training and the resources to advocate for victims and to provide critical and lifesaving interventions that it funds.

As I asked for input from Delawareans in the last few weeks, one of the hundreds who took the time to write or call my office in strong support of the reauthorization of VAWA was a former New Castle County police officer. He e-mailed me to tell me he had seen firsthand that dedicated resources and innovative policing methods made possible by VAWA made a real difference in combating these types of crimes and improving the lives of victims.

The Violence Against Women Act has been extraordinarily effective, with the annual incidence of domestic violence falling by more than 50 percent since it was first passed. Yet we still have so far to go.

Just this week, I heard from hundreds of constituents in Delaware for whom this legislation has a deep and resounding importance. From young women in their twenties to senior citizens, Delawareans from all walks of life have reached out to ask us, as Members of the Senate, to take action without delay, to work with our colleagues in the House, and to reauthorize this most important bill.

Paul from Yorklyn, DE, wrote to say that as a father of two young daughters, he worries that if the Violence Against Women Act is not reauthorized, then victims of sexual assault will once again be subject to two traumas--first, horrific attacks and, second, trying to pursue justice against their attackers.

Linda from New Castle, DE, had the courage to write me personally and say:

First of all, I am a victim and I am not ashamed to say

that [today].

Linda's willingness to lift the cloud of fear and shame that for so long enveloped victims of domestic and dating violence is brave and important in that she was able and willing to do that, but she also highlights the ongoing challenges we face. She described her hesitation to discuss abuse out loud and stressed the importance of talking about these crimes in the open in order to break what she called the generational curse.

As a son, as a husband, as a father, I too am deeply concerned about this curse that has moved from generation to generation and has affected families all throughout this country's history.

Evils such as domestic violence thrive in darkness. The Violence Against Women Act is a spotlight, and it deserves to be strengthened and sustained by this Senate today and this year.

The Violence Against Women Act requires reauthorization every 5 years. This signifies a belief that protecting victims of domestic and dating violence is so important that we must revisit it to make sure we are getting it right.

Each time we go through the process of reauthorizing this bill, we learn more about what is needed. This time around, that process, I believe, has resulted in several critical enhancements; first, by bolstering the tools available to law enforcement. Along with my friend and colleague Senator Blunt, I cochair the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus. I am determined to ensure local agencies have the tools they need to support victims and to prosecute abusers. This reauthorization will do just that.

Second, our review made clear that perpetrators find their victims throughout our society without regard for sexual orientation or gender identity. So the reauthorization that was passed out of the Judiciary Committee just earlier today addresses that challenge by making this the very first Federal grant program to explicitly state that grant recipients cannot discriminate on the basis of a victim's status. Whether they are or are not a member of the LGBT community should be irrelevant to whether they are able to access the vital services funded by the VAWA.

Finally, this reauthorization recognizes our current difficult fiscal situation as a country and promotes accountability to make sure these dollars are well spent. It reduces authorization levels while protecting the programs which have been most successful. This VAWA reauthorization merges 13 existing programs into 4 streamlined and consolidated programs. This will prevent wasted time and effort and make the application and administrative processes more efficient.

I am honored to be joined today by an old and dear friend, a former countywide-elected official, Paulette Moore, now vice president of public policy for the National Network to End Domestic Violence. I am grateful to my dear friend Carol Post, who leads the Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and my friend Amy Barasch, a tireless advocate in the ongoing efforts to bring to light the challenges of domestic violence in the State of New York.

There are folks all across this country who turn to this task week in and week out. It is long and tiring and difficult work, but it is uplifting because it is part of making this a more just, more safe, and more secure nation.

It is important for me to note that, unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle see the enhancements I just referred to in this reauthorization as a reason to abandon their long- term support for it, even though they have been strong backers of VAWA in the past. In fact, the vote we just took in the Judiciary Committee was 10 to 8. It only narrowly passed. I hope our friends on the other side of the aisle will review the details of these changes one more time and see their way clear to join us in this effort to strengthen and sustain the Violence Against Women Act. It is and should remain a bipartisan bill and a bipartisan effort.

My predecessor in this seat, our great Vice President, Joe Biden of Delaware, took an absolutely central leadership role in writing and passing the first Violence Against Women Act in one of the most enduring legacies of his 36-year Senate career, representing Delaware and advocating for women all over this country.

His efforts broke barriers and laid the groundwork for this current bill. But it is up to all of us to keep pushing tirelessly for Federal, State, and local governments to do more to save lives and to serve victims.

I urge my colleagues to come together and promptly pass the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Thank you to the men and women of this country who work so hard to end this terrible scourge of domestic violence in our country.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to express my deep concern that the 2012 National Department of Defense Authorization Act provisions pertaining to detainee treatment fail to strike the appropriate, important balance between national security, due process, and civil liberties. Sections 1021, 1022, and 1023 are the latest in a series of legislative proposals that provide ever-narrowing latitude for dealing with terrorism suspects, whether in the U.S. or abroad.

I am concerned, that these provisions take us one small, but significant, step down the road towards a state in which ordinary citizens live in fear of the military, rather than the free society that has marked this great nation since the Bill of Rights was ratified 220 years ago, in 1791.

The new detention authorities thrust upon our military in this bill are an assault on our civil liberties and do not belong on our books. They were not requested by the Pentagon, in fact they have been resisted by the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the directors of National Intelligence and the FBI. They do not make us safer and, to the contrary, they will create dangerous confusion within our national security community.

Under these sections, a terrorism suspect must be remanded to U.S. military custody, even when that suspect presents no imminent threat to public safety and is being held under suspicion of committing a U.S. crime. The suspect may be held indefinitely. Indeed, if the suspect is transferred to Guantanamo, it may be a practical reality that the suspect must be held indefinitely, thanks to the onerous certification requirements contained in Section 1023. If not sent to Guantanamo, the suspect may be rendered to a foreign power, where he may be subject to coercive interrogation, torture, or death. Or, the individual may simply remain in custody of our own military, waiting for the cessation of an endless conflict against an idea.

As my colleagues from Vermont and Oregon, from Colorado and California, have already said so eloquently, these provisions reflect an unfortunate and unwise shift away from the current law, in which the criminal justice system is presumed to be sufficient for those who commit crimes on U.S. soil. No system is perfect, but the federal criminal justice system is considered by many around the world to be the gold standard for fairness, transparency and reliability. Since 9/ 11, the civilian criminal process has been successful in securing convictions and lengthy sentences against hundreds of terrorism suspects.

This is compared to just six convictions in military tribunals, and two of these individuals are walking free today. A third, Ibrahim al Qosi, was convicted of being a Taliban fighter. Under his sentence of 2 years, he would be due to be released next summer. But when he serves his sentence, he likely will not be released. Instead, he will be detained until our undefined hostilities against Islamic extremism and terrorism conclude. In other words, he

will be detained indefinitely. Criminal process like this is little better than no process at all. It ought to be reserved for the rarest cases where the civilian criminal justice system is not suitable. It should not be made the new standard.

If we are going to short-circuit the criminal justice system, we ought to at least have good reason to do so. At a minimum, I would expect the President, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, or the Director of National Intelligence to make the case that military custody is the only way to appropriately handle terrorists. But that is not what happened here. No one is calling for these new powers. They are being thrust upon our military.

President Obama has said that these provisions will hinder his ability to prosecute the campaign against terrorists. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence have said that these provisions threaten to undermine the collection of intelligence from suspected terrorists.

They don't want these authorities.

The military does not want them either. The Secretary of Defense has said that the provisions will unnecessarily complicate its core mission of protecting our nation and projecting military force abroad. These provisions do not make sense as a matter of defense policy, and, because the meaning of some of the key terms is deliberately unclear, we can not even predict the precise impact that they will have.

In the best-case scenario, we will end up in a situation with minor changes to an existing detainee policy that has already proven to inspire and sustain this and the next generation of extremists who wish to destroy this country. In the worst-case scenario, we make several significant changes that hinder our ability to find and destroy this current generation of extremists.

I do not accept the underlying assumption of these unnecessary new provisions that the threat the United States faces is one that can be defended by more guns, taller walls, and deeper holes that we ``disappear'' people into. In fact, defense from the threats of today and tomorrow called ``asymmetric'' because they do not attempt to meet us on the battlefield with equal capabilities requires a new paradigm, the concept of defense in depth. To address asymmetric threats, including networks of extremists determined to carry out acts of terrorism, law enforcement and the Defense Department must work cooperatively to protect U.S. interests using their respective strengths in authorities and levels of response.

Instead of strengthening our ability to confront asymmetric threats, these unwelcome new authorities reinforce the philosophy that the military is the only preeminent institution of national security, with law enforcement relegated to a limited support role. That may have been an appropriate philosophy for the world in 1961, but it did not help us in 2001, and will not help us in 2021. These new authorities do nothing to change that and will not make us any safer. The only effective comprehensive model for national security is one that strengthens both our law enforcement and military to fight threats within their respective areas of expertise.

Another deeply concerning aspect of the detainee provisions in the Defense Authorization bill is what they say about the ability of the military to detain U.S. citizens. Section 1021 expands the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force to include the authority to detain and hold indefinitely any person, even a U.S. citizen, if the military suspects that such a person has supported any force associated with al-Qaeda.

While I believe it acceptable for lethal military actions to be taken against U.S. citizens abroad who have clearly taken up arms against this Nation, I am concerned about the slow but steady creep of the military into areas that traditionally have been reserved for civilian law enforcement. Testifying yesterday before the Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Robert Mueller said he has serious concerns about the potential future ramifications of introducing military forces into the criminal justice process.

At the local level, it is often difficult to distinguish whether an individual in possession of bomb-making components is a hardened terrorist coordinating with al-Qaeda; is a troubled, dangerous, but affiliated teenager; or is completely innocent of any crime at all. In the rush to ``repel borders'' at the early stages of investigations, mistakes will be made. We need to make sure that these mistakes do not overrun the constitutional protections we all enjoy as Americans.

It is true, as supporters of these provisions have argued, that Section 1021 contains a limitation that the authorization of force does not include the right to hold citizens in violations of their constitutional rights. That is some comfort, but not enough. As I sat in the presiding chair during debate over this bill, I heard my colleagues argue that we are in a time of war and that, during times of war, U.S. citizens have no constitutional protections against being treated as a prisoner of war. Even if there was broad agreement about the constitutional protections citizens enjoy against extrajudicial killing or indefinite detention, who will enforce them? Under this bill, that task would seem to be left to the President and to the military. Were my life or liberty at stake, I would want the benefit of an independent judiciary. So, too, I think would the vast majority of my fellow citizens.

Mr. President, we are in conflict against terrorists. I do not doubt or dispute that. But this is not the first time that has been the case. During the beginning part of the last century, anarchists committed a string of bombings, usually targeting police officers or civilians. In 1901, an anarchist assassinated President McKinley. In the First Red Scare during the early part of the century, a plot was uncovered to bomb 36 leaders of government and industry. During the 1960s and 70s, the Weather Underground declared as its mission to overthrow the U.S. government. Members planted bombs in the Capitol, the Department of State and the Pentagon.

Each of these threats, and others, has before placed an existential fear in the minds of Americans. We have not always acted well. The Sedition Act of 1918, the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War, and the House Un-American Activities Committee and Hollywood blacklisting following the war are three notable examples of action, taken in the face of severe threat, which now the vast majority of Americans look back upon with deep regret.

As technology has advanced, so has the ability of the government to reach into our lives, whether through unseen drones and hidden electronic surveillance, omnipresent cameras and advanced facial recognition programs, or unfettered access to our telephone and Internet records.

The advance of technology, however, is not justification for the retreat of liberty, especially not when we have at our disposal a criminal justice system that is up to the task of keeping us safe.

I plan to vote for the Conference Report of the National Defense Authorization Act because I agree with much of what is within it. During a time of war, we cannot allow our military to go unauthorized. We cannot allow our troops to go unpaid. The NDAA provides oversight of and spending limitations for the military. It elevates the head of the National Guard to the Joint Chiefs level, which is necessary to ensure that military leadership adequately considers the unique reserve capacity role now filled by the Guard. The bill will also begin to address the inability of Customs and Border Patrol agents to share information necessary to identify military and other counterfeits at our borders.

Though we were not able to remove the dangerous and counterproductive provisions contained in Sections 1021, 1022 and 1023 from the NDAA today, we are not done trying. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that we maintain the balance between security and liberty.

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

Mr. President, I rise to share a feeling that many in my home

State have expressed to me. I rise to share my frustration.

It is not just the frustration you may feel, as I have felt presiding over this body, when for hours at a time it is empty, when there is such precious and important work that we can and should be doing to get the people of this great country back to work, to strengthen our national security, to lay the groundwork for a strong recovery, to deal with the hundreds of issues this body should be dealing with. I am expressing my frustration at our inability to work together and to make real progress.

Today, I have had the blessing of being visited by a number of Delawareans for lunch, for business visits, for just some constituent catchup. As I do almost every day, I commuted down from Delaware this morning. As I have heard from folks on the train, as I have heard from folks in my office, as I have heard from folks who have written and called my offices in Delaware and in Washington, they are puzzled and they are frustrated. They don't understand why we can't move forward.

To paraphrase the good Senator from Missouri who just spoke, there is a no-brainer right in front of us, and it is the extension of the payroll tax cut. It is something that at least apparently has the support of both parties in both Houses. It is something a number of economists have said is an important contributor to the modest but steady economic growth that is helping pull America out of this terrible great recession.

So I ask: Why is it we sit here stalled, unclear on when we can proceed to a vote, to a consideration of a clean payroll tax cut? There have been a whole series of efforts to get us to the floor for a vote to an extension of the payroll tax cut. This is a simple enough matter.

Working Americans all over this country--I believe 160 million of them--will be hit with an increase in their payroll tax rate at the end of this month, just a few days now away, unless we act. My good friend Senator Casey of Pennsylvania has suggested several versions of a payroll tax cut that would build upon and strengthen the payroll tax cut that the President proposed and this body passed last year. The Casey compromise that has most recently been considered and debated in this body would put up to $1,500 in the pockets of hard-working Americans all over this country and would contribute as much as 1.5 percent to GDP growth in the coming year. But in the last 2 weeks, we have seen our colleagues on the other side of the aisle four times block our efforts through filibusters and dilatory tactics to attempt to get to a payroll tax cut extension. The first Republican version was opposed by 26 Senate Republicans; the second version opposed by 25.

So on some level I have to ask, what are we doing? Since when do Republicans openly oppose tax cuts? I have been in this Senate just over 1 year. As you know, I was sworn in last November. In my freshman year, I have seen many moments when we have been unable to reach reasonable compromise, when we have been unable to move forward, and when we have flirted with having to shut down the whole Federal Government because we couldn't reach an appropriate compromise with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Now we, once again, stand here this Wednesday, knowing that unless we can act in partnership, we will shut down this government on Friday without a continuing resolution.

Last night, the House acted. They passed this payroll tax cut extension and sent it over to us, and I am puzzled as to why we are not moving to it on the floor today. I will tell you that when we get to move to it, I will vote against it, and I know many others here will as well. Why? Because H.R. 3630, which passed the House last night, is not just a clean extension of the payroll tax cut bill--in fact, far from it. It is loaded with a whole series of other policy riders, things that have nothing to do with the payroll tax cut extension which House leadership had to do in order to garner enough votes to move it.

Today we should be considering this bill sent to us last night, the Speaker asking us to take it up, and it has a whole series of provisions which I suspect many here and at home don't know about. I will briefly consider a few of them.

It undermines health care reform by punishing low- and middle-income families whose economic circumstances changed during the year. It cuts 40 weeks of unemployment benefits from the 99 weeks we would like to extend to 54 weeks. It overrides the President's decisionmaking process on the Keystone XL Pipeline--in my view, simply to embarrass the President--and it amends the Clean Air Act to block EPA's proposed rules on toxic air pollution from industrial boilers.

It would also freeze Federal pay through 2013 and impose a triple contribution, mandatory contribution to Federal retirement programs, effectively cutting Federal employee pay and taking more than $53 billion out of the pockets of Federal workers.

To me, in some ways most alarmingly, it allows States to impose drug- testing requirements on employees who have lost their jobs and are seeking unemployment.

In short, what came over to us from the House last night is the furthest thing possible from a clean extension of the payroll tax cut. It is a payroll tax cut with rider after rider sitting on the back of this horse that has weighed it down so greatly, it can clearly hardly move. It is a terrible bill, and in my view we should move to it, dispose of it, and get back to the business of the country.

Last, I am puzzled as to why we are not proceeding to it. My recollection--and I don't have the joy of sitting here on the floor all the time, but my recollection from what I read and heard is that the Republican leader has twice called on us to move to this bill. I believe he did so twice earlier this week, saying we should put partisanship aside and promptly take up whatever is sent over to us from the House by way of a payroll tax cut extension. I think I quote when I say his comment was:

I think the first thing we need to find out is whether

there are the votes in the Senate to pass what the House has

passed. And so I'd rather not speculate about what happens

later. I'm hoping we are spending our time and energy trying

to get this bill passed in the Senate, as well as in the

House.

That is a perfectly reasonable attitude. We should proceed to this bill. We are here. We have the bill. We have been waiting almost literally the entire day without making any progress. We need to extend tax cuts for payrolls. We need to extend tax cuts that incentivize clean energy investments. We need to extend tax cuts that can help inspire innovation, research, and development.

There is a whole list of tax cuts that will expire at the end of this year without action. We need to pass the National Defense Authorization Act. We need to pass a continuing resolution to fund this government and the rest of this year's appropriations bills. There are so many important bills to which we must turn.

My sole question is, why, when we tried to proceed to this bill this morning, did the Republican leader object?

I am just a freshman, but I represent a State that is deeply frustrated and puzzled. Since when do Republicans load up a tax cut extension with so many riders that they are afraid to even bring it to a vote on the floor of this Chamber? I am puzzled. I am frustrated.

With that, I yield the floor.

I thank Senator Kirk. I am grateful for the Senator inviting me to join him in a real debate on the floor on an issue about which we disagree and about which we cast opposing votes earlier today. It is an issue of real import to our country. It is something that has been debated in the past and will be in the future but essentially whether we should have a balanced budget amendment.

I could not agree more that we need to be responsible; that the United States and this Senate need to face our serious and crippling national deficits and debt.

It was a good idea when Thomas Jefferson recognized that a balanced budget amendment was a bad idea. Thomas Jefferson actually, several years later, after supporting a balanced budget amendment, acted as President in ways that demonstrated he understood that real opportunities required extraordinary capabilities by the Federal Government.

I was a county executive. Others in this Chamber who were mayors or Governors lived with balanced budget requirements and it imposed great restrictions on us. It forced us to make tough decisions on annual timelines, so I understand why it is tempting to consider passing one of the balanced budget amendments that were before this Chamber today.

But there is a difference between the Federal Government and the State and local governments. Thomas Jefferson acted decisively to make the Louisiana Purchase possible and to finance the War of 1812. During the current economic downturn, if the Federal Government had not been able to borrow and invest in restoring growth to this country, we would not have had a great recession, we would have had a second depression. I am convinced of it, and it is one of the reasons I think, had the balanced budget amendment been in place, we would have been in even greater trouble than we have been over the last few years.

This Senate can, should, and has shown the ability to reach balanced budgets--no, in fact, surpluses--within living memory. In fact, when President Clinton was the President, this Senate and the House acted together. They adopted budgetary self-restraint.

Why amend the Constitution of the United States, our most foundational document, when we have within our own power, recently demonstrated in the late 1990s, the capacity to control ourselves?

The Senator and I agree we are leaving to our children an enormous, crushing legacy of a national debt that has exceeded safe boundaries. But why amend the Constitution in order to force the Senate to do our job? Instead, I think we should embrace some of the tough, big, bold, bipartisan proposals that have been put on the table--whether the Bowles-Simpson Commission or others. The framework of a broad deal that requires sacrifice from all, changes to the spiraling Federal spending, and changes in the direction of the country is on the table before us. Why take a detour into amending America's foundational document rather than simply stepping up and doing the job that is before us?

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, as the good Senator from Illinois suggests, we are, indeed, encumbering future generations with a debt that has risen above $40,000 per American. This is a central challenge of our time, one in which our national security leadership has cited as critical to ensuring our security and our liberty going forward. But, in my view, the balanced budget amendment that was advanced through S.J. Res. 10 earlier today would compel exactly the sort of intergenerational burdens that my good friend from Illinois suggests he seeks to avoid.

Let me be clear. The requirements of that balanced budget amendment include a spending cap, a supermajority requirement to raise the national debt, and a two-thirds requirement for any increase in Federal revenue. Those in combination would compel drastic, immediate, and substantial reductions in a wide range of programs--such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits--that if imposed would

have not just a short-term, very negative impact on our current economy but a significant restructuring of the longstanding relationships between individual citizens and generations.

Yes, leaving a legacy of debt to the next generation is a terrible thing for us to do, but leaning on the crutch of the Constitution and the fig leaf of a constitutional amendment to avoid doing our responsibility--a job which the Senate is fully capable of doing-- avoids that responsibility to the next generation.

I close with this question: As we say in the law, if there is a right, what is the remedy? If we were to pass this constitutional amendment, how would it be enforced if the Senate in the future were to fail to balance the budget? Would lifetime Federal judges around the country be imposing choices in terms of budget cuts, spending cuts, revenue changes? I think that would be no better--in fact, far worse-- than the Senate simply doing its job.

Today I voted against this balanced budget amendment because I think we have it within our power to show self-control and to secure the future for the next generation of Americans.

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the career of the executive director of the Delaware Nature Society, Michael E. Riska. Mike is retiring this year after serving as executive director for 28 wonderful years spent opening the minds and hearts of Delawareans young and old to the splendor of our natural world.

Mike Riska attended West Chester University and earned a bachelor of science with a double major in biology and physical education. He also earned his master's in education in Natural Science from the University of Delaware. He is a certified teacher in biology, general science, health, and physical education.

Truly devoted to educating students in the natural sciences, Mike began his career as a teacher at the Tatnall School in Greenville, DE. He taught science to students in the first through eighth grades and taught eight 5-week upper-school marine ecology courses based on Sanibel Island, FL.

Mike took his love of science and education to the Delaware Nature Society in 1969, where he started as a part-time instructor and youth programs director. He was part of the initiative to transform the H.B. DuPont Farm into a learning environment for students across Delaware. For my first job, as a seventh grader, I was hired by Mike to assist other Delaware youngsters in building the trails that would soon become Ashland Nature Center. Every year thousands of students, including my own children, attend summer camps and class field trips at the Ashland Nature Center, where they learn about nature, ecology, and conservation.

Mike Riska was appointed to executive director of the Delaware Nature Society in 1984, just the third person to serve in this capacity. With Mike at the helm, the Delaware Nature Society earned record donations for furthering its mission of fostering understanding, appreciation, and enjoyment of the natural world through education. The society also worked to preserve ecologically significant areas and advocate stewardship and conservation of natural resources.

Mike has been recognized with several awards, including the Nature Conservancy Lifetime Conservation Achievement Award in 1997, an Exceptional Leadership Award from the Association of Nature Center Administrators' Board of Directors in 1999, and the 1999 President's Award of Association of Nature Center Administrators for dedication and service to the nature center profession. The Association of Nature Center Administrators recognized him as the recipient of its 2002 Leadership Award.

Mike has worked closely with several other Delaware nature conservancy organizations and is admired and respected by his peers. Andrew Manus, director of conservation programs of the Delaware Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, said:

Let me add my voice of congratulations to others who have

benefitted from the years of dedicated service that Mike

Riska has brought to conservation in Delaware. The Delaware

Nature Society has been well served by his leadership, as has

the greater conservation community in Delaware. Mike's

thoughtful advocacy for the natural world in Delaware will be

his endearing legacy for us all to enjoy.

Roger L. Jones, State director of the Delaware Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, stated:

Mike Riska's legacy is very simple--he instilled a passion

for nature and a boundless commitment for protecting our

environment within thousands of people in Delaware.

Lorraine Fleming, 2005 Delaware Audubon Conservation Award recipient, said:

Natural science and environmental education is Mike Riska's

first love. It has been the foundation for his visionary

leadership of the Delaware Nature Society over 28 years as

executive director and before that as assistant director.

Recognition and cultivation of staff and volunteers is Mike's

natural strength. While he is always quick to give credit to

his staff members and the society's large cadre of

volunteers, the overall direction and support for DNS'

accomplishments has consistently come from Mike. Mike's

legacy is an enduring preeminent Delaware environmental

organization that is nationally renowned among nature

centers.

Mr. President, today I honor Mike Riska's legacy and accomplishments at the Delaware Nature Society. It is an honor to call him my first boss, a fellow advocate, and my friend.

I thank the Senator for entering into this colloquy about Delaware Day. As some folks may know, if you look at the Delaware flag, as the Senator mentioned, there is the date, December 7, 1787. That is the day 30 Delawareans, elected delegates, gathered at the Golden Fleece Tavern in Dover and voted unanimously to make Delaware the first State to ratify the U.S. Constitution. That is why our State moniker is--

Yes, the First State.

One of the things I have always been struck by is that it was 11 years before that that Delaware actually, on Separation Day, on June 15 of 1776, acted both to declare its independence from Pennsylvania and its independence from the King of England, and by doing so acted in an incredibly risky way because, of course, had the Continental Congress on July 4 not chosen to ratify the Declaration of Independence, Delaware would have stood alone, and arguably hung alone, for having taken the risk of stepping out first.

Delaware has a tradition of being first--first in declaring its independence and acting to secure its independence, and in ratifying the Constitution, which set the whole structure that ended the debate over the Articles of Confederation and moved toward the Federal system, one where we look to each other as States and look to this government for the provision of and the securing of our liberty through the balance of justice and liberty that we rely on so much. What else are we doing to celebrate this great day?

That made it possible for our delegation to be represented in Philadelphia and for us to commit to the Declaration by breaking a tie between the other representatives of Delaware in the Continental Congress.

Although we have a senior Senator who is tireless in his effective advocacy of our State.

If I might, later today we are having our first Delaware Day reception in one of the Senate buildings. It is a way for us to promote and celebrate what is great about Delaware.

One of the things I treasure most about Delaware is our unique political culture--a culture that focuses on consensus, on reasoned compromise, on bringing folks together across from what is, in some other places, a sharp partisan divide to find reasonable, principled paths forward to tackling the challenges that face our State. It is that consensus, commonsense approach I know my senior Senator brought to his two terms as Governor and has brought to the Senate. Our Congressman, who was on national television this morning with a Republican cosponsor of an initiative, has also made that a hallmark of his tenure. I know our Governor has as well.

I wanted to suggest that one of the things that makes Delaware unique, special, valued, and first isn't just our agricultural products, it isn't just our great and enjoyable food products, and it isn't just our unique history in the beginning of our country but it is also how we continue to find ways to build bridges across the divide that so many Americans watch us in the Congress wrestling with at this moment and that I think, in our home State, we have managed to find a good path forward.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate adopted an amendment to the bill we now consider that would, among other things, give the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I was a strong supporter of this amendment, as I was its two legislative predecessors, the Guardians of Freedom Act and the National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act.

Since then, I have actively lobbied my colleagues to support the measures, and I am glad that this week, so many of them came together to support it. With more than 70 cosponsors from across the political spectrum and ultimately, the unanimous consent of this body, the deep bipartisan support shown for the National Guard this week is not only indicative of the immense respect the brave citizen soldiers of this Nation have earned, but of the extraordinary potential they have for enhancing our national security.

A National Guard in one form or another has served our Nation bravely and honorably for 375 years. Their courage is no less respected, their families no less concerned for their well-being. They have done extraordinary work these last 10 years in in Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and in Operation New Dawn. But that is not what this amendment was about. This amendment was not about rewarding what has been done in the past.

Rather, it was about recognizing what we need to do for our future in order to keep our country safe. That is the key here: bringing to bear every resource we have for the defense of this Nation.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff are the top military advisers to the President and to the Secretary of Defense. They are responsible for making sure our military is prepared for every threat to our national security, but as those threats tilt toward the asymmetric, so must our military planning.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have begun a fundamental transformation of our military, shifting away from a posture designed to counter Soviet aggression in Europe toward a posture that confronts asymmetric threats to American lives and interests.

Writing in a report for the Center for New American Security last year, retired General Gordon Sullivan described the National Guard as at a crossroads: ``Down one path lies continued transformation into a 21st-century operational force and progress on the planning, budgetary and management reforms still required to make that aspiration a reality. Down the other path lies regression to a Cold War-style strategic force meant only to be used as a last resort in the event of major war.''

There was a clear choice, and this week the Senate made it, taking what I believe is a significant step toward strengthening our national security.

When national defense solely meant fighting our enemies abroad, the current organizational strategy made sense. But now that we are more likely to have to defend against threats to America's national security here on American shores at the same time, we need the National Guard to have a seat at the table. We need the National Guard's resources and capabilities to be a first-line consideration that matches their first- line mandate.

In my home State of Delaware, the 31st Civil Support Team is the tip of the spear of the military response to a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack by terrorists. Following closely behind police, fire, and EMS services, our CST would diagnose the threat, inform and update the chain of command, and prepare the affected area to receive a response by larger units, coordinating as far up the chain as U.S. Northern Command.

When the Joint Chiefs sit down to plan for a biological attack on this country, they need someone at the table who fully understands the mission of units like the 31st Civil Support Team, whose members are full-time Guard, but not Active Duty military.

One area that needs more thought by the Joint Chiefs, and that I hope General McKinley and his successors will help them focus on, is the important role the Guard can play in cyber security, an area where most threats are decidedly asymmetric.

The Delaware Air National Guard's 166th Network Warfare Squadron is already playing a key role in our nation's defensive and offensive cyber capability working with U.S. Cyber Command, but its potential as a bridge between the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, between Federal and State governments, and between the public and private sectors has barely been considered outside of a few circles. Determining what unique role the Guard can play in cyber security to create a more robust, more flexible defense-in-depth is just one of the new ideas I believe the Chief of the National Guard Bureau can bring to the planning process.

The men and women of the National Guard bring extraordinary capabilities to our Armed Forces, and because of the action we have taken here this week, I know that our military will be better prepared for new and emerging threats to our Nation.

Mr. President, another amendment that I filed to S. 1867, the Senate's Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization bill, would have advanced new clean energy opportunities and enjoyed bipartisan support. The amendment's cosponsors included Senators Shaheen, Portman, Gillibrand, Merkley, and Kerry. Unfortunately, we were not able to offer it this week because of a disagreement over scoring. It was an important opportunity missed so I wanted to take a moment to note what this amendment entailed.

Amendment No. 1265 would have confronted a critical long-term challenge facing our Nation's military: the spiraling cost of its reliance on petroleum. As we look for ways to save taxpayer dollars and reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, utilizing more electric vehicles should become a priority for the Defense Department and the entire Federal Government.

Investment in clean energy technology is an investment in America's energy security. Liquid petroleum accounts for three-quarters of our Armed Forces' energy consumption, and approximately 60 percent of that comes from abroad. The Defense Department has explicitly cited the operational risk inherent to our dependence on foreign oil and has committed itself to aggressively reducing energy consumption.

Senate Amendment No. 1265 would allow the Defense Department and other Federal agencies to purchase electric vehicles and charging infrastructure under Energy Savings Performance Contracts, ESPC. ESPCs themselves aren't new: the government has used ESPCs for years to pay for energy efficiency upgrades. It has been enormously successful and costs the government nothing up front. That's right, ESPCs are paid for, financed, performed and guaranteed by the private sector with the government paying back the private sector through guaranteed energy savings over time. Our amendment would have made electric vehicles and charging infrastructure eligible for the program.

Energy efficiency is about more than turning the lights off when you leave a building. It is about the appliances you buy, the tools you use, and the vehicles you drive.

The Federal Government is America's largest energy consumer and within the government, the Defense Department is the biggest energy consumer. One out of every three vehicles owned by the Federal Government is owned by the Pentagon, which is why we raised this amendment this week.

Amendment No. 1265 would have helped increase the share of the government-owned fleet that is cost-efficient, energy-efficient electric vehicles. On top of that, it would not add a dime to the Federal deficit. By buying these vehicles in through ESPCs, the government does not put up any money up front. Rather, it enters an agreement with a private-sector contractor--a job-creating private- sector contractor--where the agency pays the contractor over an agreed- upon period of time--as many as 25 years.

What they are paying each month, though, is the net savings achieved by using the electric vehicle instead of a conventional vehicle. This is an unconventional, but creative and cost-efficient way to save money, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and even to help support a growing private industry.

This amendment would have simply provided the Defense Department with a new tool for acquiring cost-efficient electric vehicles, which is what they are asking us to do. They want to add electric vehicles to their fleets. The Defense Department has already done extraordinary work in leveraging energy efficiency to reduce its costs and reduce its dependence on foreign oil. We want to help them do more.

This is a challenging economic time for our country, and our military needs every advantage it can get as it confronts dangerous threats to our national and energy security. By empowering the Pentagon to buy more of these energy-efficient, cost-efficient electric vehicles, we are saving taxpayer dollars and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Investment in clean energy technology is an investment in America's energy security, and energy security is, without a doubt, an increasingly important, and increasingly fragile, aspect of America's national security.

This is a common-sense policy that unfortunately cannot be considered at this point because of a technicality in how the Congressional Budget Office scores ESPCs. It has been going on for 10 years and, as I understand, it has provided endless frustration to my colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and several other congressional committees, and this problem reaches beyond the electric vehicle option alone.

A key point to make here is that whenever Congress tells the Federal Government to become more efficient but does not provide appropriated funding for the purpose, a score is triggered because the government might use ESPCs to meet the mandate. Effectively, Congress cannot tell the Federal Government to save money through efficiency. Further, while ESPCs are scored by the CBO rules, OMB does not score them because the government does not incur any costs through their use. This specious score has essentially limited our ability to reduce appropriated dollars and achieve energy efficient simultaneously using private sector expertise and funding.

This amendment is something that is important to me. I am hopeful it is something that we will be able to pass down the road. In the meantime, it is an opportunity lost, to help our military prepare for the threats facing our nation.

I thank the Senator.

Senator Rubio and I have come to floor today to talk about our shared experiences. In my home State of Delaware, over the 1 year I have been a Senator--and over the years before that, I served in county government--I have heard from hundreds, even thousands, of families and individuals looking for work, deeply hurt and challenged by the ongoing slow economic recovery. Folks have come to us asking for opportunities for assistance, for promise and hope.

In reality, I think what is causing some real concern in this country, in my State and most likely in yours, Madam President, and most likely in Senator Rubio's as well, is a broadly shared concern that we here in the Capitol, we in Congress, are not capable of getting past the partisan politics and making real progress in tackling the job-creating challenges before us.

Let me, if I could, quote from a couple of letters I have received from Delawareans in the last few months. Lawrence from Milford wrote my office: Congress needs to stop the political arguing and take positive action to make America and our economy strong again.

Janet from Wilmington wrote: I am the owner of a very small business. I have been in business 29 years and I have never seen it as tough as it is today.

Joseph in Smyrna summed it all up in a letter he wrote: Our economy needs jobs now.

Delaware is a great place to grow a business, to raise a family, to achieve success. But we have the toughest economy we have seen in generations. The folks we represent expect us to act, and they expect us to find ways to work together and to get past the partisan divide that has made it so difficult for us to make progress.

I ask the Senator what sorts of things has he heard from his constituents in Florida, and how has that motivated the Senator to act?

We together yesterday announced the introduction of the AGREE Act, the American Growth Recovery Entrepreneurship and Empowerment Act, which conveniently spells out ``agree.'' The core principle, as Senator Rubio described, was for a real Republican and a real Democrat to look through all of the different ideas that have been put out there, in the President's jobs bill, by the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, by Members of the Senate and the House from both parties, that we could come to agreement on, and to put them into a bill packaged to assemble all of these ideas and to put them out and hopefully we will pick up cosponsors, hope it will pick up steam, and hope we can demonstrate to the American people, to the families Senator Rubio and I have heard from in letters and e-mails and tweets, who have expressed real concern.

The basic big-picture proposals in this bill are, first, extending tax relief for small businesses. There are three different provisions that have already been in law but that would be extended by this bill: for capital gains exclusions for 5-year investments in qualified small businesses, for accelerated depreciation, and for increased expensing, all of which would help small businesses invest in growth; encouraging cutting-edge research and innovation by making permanent the R&D tax credit, and by adding something to it that I think has real potential, an added incentive for companies that invent something here to manufacture it here; another, commonsense regulatory relief for fast- growing businesses that seek to go public; another, an idea originally championed by Senator Casey, providing incentives through the Tax Code for veterans to become franchise owners and entrepreneurs; reducing some immigration barriers that prevent highly skilled workers who studied here from staying here; and now the last point, protecting American businesses from intellectual property theft, strengthening our ability to prevent counterfeit goods from coming into American markets by fixing a small but real barrier to effective border protection against counterfeiting.

All of these provisions are provisions that have already enjoyed bipartisan support in other settings. We have simply assembled them together, put them into a commonsense package, and want to move them forward.

I ask Senator Rubio, what sort of response has our action gotten so far from people in Florida, around the country, who might have contacted the Senator about this initiative?

That is right. I have gotten immediate response from Twitter, e-mail, et cetera, in my office account. I got a tweet from Jason, who wrote:

Kudos . . . for introducing jobs-creating legislation. Good

to see detailed plans rather than partisan bickering.

Another tweet said this:

If AGREE is a jobs act that can get passed, I, an American

that cares about the unemployed, say ``thanks.''

Mary June from Delaware City wrote:

I think it is great to see a bipartisan approach to solving

the jobs crisis in the United States. Thank you for getting

past party lines and coming together to provide commonsense

solutions.

Maria from Middletown wrote:

I think it is time for both parties to come together as you

and Senator Rubio have to bring our country back to where we

have people working again and families striving to achieve

the American dream. The same dream that I had when I was

growing up. The dream I thought my sons and granddaughter

were going to live. The business as usual in Washington has

to stop, and through this bill you will both prove to your

fellow Senators that if you all work together, anything is

possible.

To be clear, as Senator Rubio said, there are real differences, real things that divide the parties. There is time ahead before the election to resolve those fundamental differences in values, approach, and priorities. But, while we can, we should come together with commonsense proposals that demonstrate to the American people that we can take ideas, Republican and Democrat, House and Senate, put them in a package and pass them on to the President, because 12 months is too long to wait.

As we all wait for the outcome of the supercommittee this week, I know confidence is one of the major issues we have concerns about-- confidence in the marketplace, the confidence to take risks and invest, and the confidence to grow. In my view, this bill, this initiative shows that both parties can and do have confidence in American inventors, American investors, our veterans, and America's entrepreneurs.

I am grateful for a chance to work on this. I ask the Senator, what is the next step and where do we go from here?

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

Madam President, I rise today, on the eve of Veterans Day, to speak on behalf of those who have fought for our country only to return home to find that their fight must continue, this time their fight for a job, for employment. I rise today to offer my support on the floor for the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, which I believe is now before this body.

I am a cosponsor of this bill, because as a nation we must do more to appreciate, to support the service of our returning heroes, and to help them to fully recover from their service abroad by returning to meaningful employment in the civilian sector.

We have not had as many servicemembers coming home from military service abroad in a long time. Unfortunately, so many of them come home to a bitterly slow recovery from the great recession. The employment rate among all veterans from service in Iraq or Afghanistan is now 30 percent higher than the national unemployment rate. It is at roughly 12.1 percent. That means nearly a quarter million veterans who are unemployed.

This bill is about equipping them, equipping them effectively to return home to full employment. We have a tremendous asset in the highly trained, highly skilled, highly motivated veterans we have deployed overseas in the service of freedom and who are now returning home seeking service in employment with America's businesses.

We are talking about men and women who are real leaders, tested leaders who have learned something useful about managing people through some of the most difficult situations imaginable, folks in whom we invest hundreds of millions of dollars every year, year in and year out, in training them and equipping them--billions of dollars in equipping them to the highest service levels when we send them overseas. We should invest comparably in making sure that that training, that equipment, is relevant as they return home.

This summer I hosted a roundtable in Delaware on veterans jobs. Nineteen participants came from a wide range of sectors: from the military, from labor, from businesses, from all sorts of different civilian support organizations that work with our returning veterans. As we had a long and productive conversation, the message was loud and clear: We can and should incentivize private businesses to hire veterans. We can help connect the private sector--these businesses across America--with veterans whom they want to hire. And we can and should do a better job of helping returning veterans transition to civilian service.

In Delaware and across the country, we have had some great programs in the past: Helmets to Hard Hats, for example, one with which I became familiar in my previous service in county government, that connected folks in the building trades who wanted to welcome into their ranks veterans returning from recent service, with those who have served our country honorably overseas and are now home fighting for jobs.

There is also the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, or ESGR, with which I regularly communicated as county executive and continue to offer my support as Senator, that helps make sure those who serve overseas in the Guard and Reserve know that their employers understand and respect their legal obligations and their moral obligations to provide employment opportunities comparable to those they had before they deployed.

We also had participating in this important conversation this summer Delaware companies that have made a public pledge to hiring veterans, Summit Aviation in Middletown, JPMorgan Chase, with a very large presence in Delaware, which has made a very real and sustained commitment to hiring returning veterans.

We have a jobs crisis in America. Today, Delaware's veterans unemployment rate is 8 percent. While that is good compared to the national average, 8 percent should not be a good number. In my view, this Congress could have no higher priority than helping Americans get back to work and in that priority helping America's veterans get back to work.

The bill we are on today is the fourth major jobs bill full of ideas, many of which originally came from the other side of the aisle for job creation that we have introduced and considered--the American Jobs Act, a bill that would put public safety workers and teachers back to work and sustain their public service role; a bill that would invest in the infrastructure bank and public dollars for infrastructure all over this country--and all of these bills have been blocked--not defeated but blocked, prevented through filibuster from even coming to the floor. If ever there were a jobs bill that has earned bipartisan support, it is the one this body will vote on later today. Today, we have an opportunity to make it easier for our veterans to find jobs, and

I am encouraged by very real signs that this bill may pass, so that all of us can go home tomorrow to our States, participate in Veterans Day ceremonies, having voted for a bill designed to help so many of America's service men and women ease their path back to full employment in the civilian economy. I believe we owe them nothing less.

This bill offers tax credits to businesses in the private sector that would hire veterans. It guarantees servicemembers access to training designed to facilitate their transition to civilian life, and allows them full use of the skills they have gained in service to our Nation, and it cuts through some of the bureaucratic redtape that has made it difficult for veterans to get access to Federal resources.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, just as I was proud to cosponsor with Senator Murray of Washington the hiring heroes act this spring. We owe it to America to work more aggressively together, across the aisle, in confronting this ongoing jobs crisis. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act today.

Obtaining Permanent Residency

Madam President, I also wish to take another few minutes to discuss a bill that I hope will pass the Senate later today on a similar topic. It is a small bill addressing a complicated issue, but it will make a big difference in the lives of many of our servicemembers.

When an American marries a foreign national, an immigrant, and that immigrant decides he or she wants to become an American citizen, they begin a process of obtaining permanent residency, of applying for and seeking a green card. Before the 2-year mark in that process, the couple must fill out a form together and appear for an in-person interview. You have a 90-day window to file that paperwork and another 90 days to appear for this in-person interview together. Here is the problem. What if you are in the military and deployed abroad. What if the American in this couple is in a war zone and cannot make it back to the United States in that limited, tightly defined 90-day window for an in-person interview. You might miss your opportunity for you and your spouse to have the interview and secure his or her green card in this United States.

Our soldiers, in my view, have enough to worry about without adding this to the list. The bill we will offer later today is a simple fix. My colleague, Senator Graham of South Carolina, and I have introduced a bill that Congresswoman Zoey Lofgren introduced in the House earlier this year. It would give our servicemembers the flexibility to wait until after their deployments have concluded in order to conduct these in-person interviews. That measure passed the House of Representatives 426 to 0. It is my hope it will also pass this Senate unanimously tonight.

We are blessed in this Nation to be served by volunteers, by men and women who go to the other side of the world to serve us in the interest of freedom. The two bills I have spoken of here on the floor today are things that we can and should do together across the aisle to advance their interests in having the enjoyment of liberty for which they sacrificed so much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I couldn't agree more with the Senator who just spoke that we are in a situation where the all-time approval rating of this body seems to have reached an all-time low. There are justified reasons for the frustration and for the anger of a very broad run of our constituents, of the folks who hired us to come here from our States of West Virginia and Delaware, from Arizona, and others to try to fix the problems confronting this country. And much of the mess, many of the things that got us into this problem have not been solved.

I rise today to speak about one way forward out of it. I think one of the reasons there is so much frustration with Congress and the general public is there is broad support for some simple solutions to get Americans back to work, to revive and strengthen our economy, and we just seem incapable of reaching across this partisan divide and moving forward. One of those is an infrastructure bank.

I rise today to follow up on a speech I gave yesterday about why investing in American infrastructure means investing in America's future. Infrastructure--building roads and bridges, highways and sewer systems, modernizing America's backbone--enjoys very broad support from all across the United States, from all different sectors, because Americans understand it will put folks back to work in the building trades industries that have taken the hardest hit in this recession and in a way that will lay the groundwork for our long-term future competitiveness.

This is smart spending. This is investing in the best tradition of Federal, State, local, and private partnerships to make America more competitive for the future.

I want to talk about one element of the bill which I hope we will move to later today, the American Infrastructure Financing Authority, or known more colloquially as the National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank.

If this idea sounds familiar, it is because it has already been introduced. It is a bipartisan bill, the BUILD Act, championed by Senator Kerry and Senator Hutchison, of which I am a cosponsor, and one that provides a creative financing vehicle for building infrastructure going forward.

Before becoming a Senator in the election just 1 year ago yesterday, I served for 6 years as the county executive of Delaware's largest county, and one of the services our county was responsible for was running a county-wide sewer system. We had 1,800 miles of sanitary sewer, and it was a constant challenge to maintain. That is a lot of pipe, a lot of pump stations, and a lot of sewage backing up in people's homes in the middle of the night, which led to a lot of aggravated calls from constituents.

It was an aging system like so much of America's infrastructure, one in which we had underinvested for too long. From personal experience, I can tell you that the lack of infrastructure, of adequate sewer capacity was a major to barrier to future growth. So, too, across States and counties and cities all over this country. Where the roads and rail, the ports, and the sewer systems aren't up to current global standards, we can't expect to grow to meet our global competitors.

When we talk about capital infrastructure improvements at the local level in the government I used to be with, it wasn't some wish list. This wasn't some future technology. This wasn't some risky investment. It was triage. It was critically needed investment in pipes in the ground that would protect our water, strengthen our community, and grow our economy.

As a nation, the American Society of Civil Engineers has told us we need $2.2 trillion over just the next 5 years in infrastructure investments to keep America moving forward. We are talking about fixing unsafe bridges, dealing with clogged highways, and rebuilding

airports so they can handle larger modern aircraft safely. That is an enormous scope, $2.2 trillion over just the next 5 years. We are already asking so much of the supercommittee in terms of finding dramatic savings and reductions in Federal spending. Where will this level of investment come from to put America back to work?

So, in my view, we have to get creative. We have to leverage. We have to bring in more resources than are currently on the field, and especially now, especially in this country I think we have to be smart about how we spend our funds.

The Rebuild America Jobs Act, to which I hope we will be moving later this afternoon, would put $50 billion directly into infrastructure, put $10 billion as a downpayment into making possible this new infrastructure bank, seed money that makes possible loans and loan guarantees--not grants--for a wide range of infrastructure projects, including energy, water, and critically needed transportation. Remember, we need more than $400 billion a year in investment right now just to keep up. But we all know the constrained budgets of our counties, State, and local governments can't get the financing they need. This infrastructure bank would provide the leverage, a vehicle to finance desperately needed projects.

Just a few things about it. It would be for big projects, projects that cost more than $25 million in rural communities, $100 million in the rest of the country. It would only be allowed to finance up to 50 percent of a project to avoid crowding out private capital and to make sure that private capital has skin in the game so it is a viable project. It is my expectation, in fact, that the infrastructure bank would finance a much smaller piece of most projects, just enough to bring private investment to the table. It would be government-owned but independently operated, have its own bipartisan board of directors, and function much like the successful Ex-Im.

An infrastructure bank passed by the Senate this week could provide up to $160 billion in direct financial assistance over its first 10 years to infrastructure for transportation. That would be paired with private investment that could double, triple, or even quadruple, increasing the full impact of this bank.

I said yesterday that infrastructure is a smart investment for our country and that a national infrastructure bank as a part of that strategy would provide a vehicle for the private sector to get in on this investment as well and to help us accelerate our move toward the future. This is smart policy.

It is a funny thing about infrastructure, how we inevitably take it for granted. Whether you are running a State highway system or a county sewer system, you never know how much people miss it until it isn't working the way they expect.

Unfortunately, in cities, counties, and States across our country today, companies and communities are discovering that our aged infrastructure is imposing costs on us we cannot bear. The American Society of Civil Engineers, which I have referred to before, recently released a study saying that our Nation's deteriorating surface transportation infrastructure alone could result in the loss of nearly 1 million jobs and will suppress our GDP growth by nearly $1 billion between now and 2020. That is an enormous loss of future economic activity.

We cannot put this off any further. As a country, we cannot keep swerving to avoid these potholes on the path to prosperity. Eventually we are going to hit them, and eventually they will continue to be a drag on our Nation. The Rebuild America Jobs Act would fill these potholes, would patch these pipes, would lay the new runways to allow America's economy to take off.

This Rebuild America Jobs Act, which would rebuild 150,000 miles of roadway, maintain 4,000 miles of train track, upgrade 150 miles of airport runways, restore critical drinking water and wastewater systems, is nothing short of the smart investment we need to be competitive for the future. It would put people back to work, it would steer us on the right road to sustained recovery, and it would fix the problems that lie right in our path as we try to do our jobs for the folks who hired us to come here and help them get back to work.

We need to act today. It is my hope that my colleagues will join us this afternoon in voting for the motion to proceed to the Rebuild America Jobs Act, a critical piece of which is this smart infrastructure bank.

The Nomination of Richard Andrews

Mr. President, I move now briefly to support the nomination of Richard Andrews, who has been nominated to be U.S. district court judge for the District of Delaware. Rich Andrews is an exceptional lawyer, a dedicated public servant, and a good man. When the Senate confirms his nomination, hopefully later today, Rich will become the fourth active judge serving in the District of Delaware. This will mark the very first time in 5 years that this very busy court will operate without a vacancy. For a small district such as Delaware, albeit one with such a specialized and complex caseload, even a single vacancy places a significant burden on the court.

Mr. Andrews' nomination has been pending 177 days, and while I am grateful for the consent agreement that I hope will allow his nomination to be considered today, I remain concerned that such a noncontroversial and qualified nominee as Rich could take nearly half a year to reach floor consideration. The judicial vacancy rate hovers near 10 percent, we have 31 judicial emergencies, and it is my hope that this body will continue to move expeditiously to fill vacancies throughout the country.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I had a chance to chair the nominations hearing for Rich and to take part in the committee's consideration of his nomination. I have reviewed his record, listened to his testimony, met with him personally, conferred with my senior Senator, Mr. Carper, and as a result of all this, I assure my colleagues I have every confidence that Rich is a qualified judge and will serve Delaware and this Nation brilliantly.

During his 30 years of service for Delaware so far, he has established himself as a talented, dedicated, and humble public servant who possesses the strongest work ethic and the highest integrity and intellect.

He began his service to our State when, after graduating from Berkeley Law School, he came to Delaware as a law clerk for Chief Judge Collin Seitz of the Third Circuit. Luckily for us, he never left.

After completing his clerkship, he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Delaware, where he spent the next 24 years, much of it serving as the first assistant U.S. attorney and chief of the Criminal Division. During this time, he has tried, in that role, more than 50 felony jury cases and argued 17 cases before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Since leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2007, he has served as State prosecutor for the Delaware Department of Justice and leads more than 70 deputy attorneys general in the Criminal Division and has overseen tens of thousands of prosecutions each year. I am confident that his experiences as a prosecutor have given him the knowledge, skills, and temperament to join and serve ably on the District of Delaware Federal bench.

When I chaired his nomination hearing, I was impressed by his professionalism, intelligence, and demeanor. Rich enjoys broad bipartisan support, having been reported unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I urge all my colleagues to join Senator Carper and me in supporting Mr. Andrews so he will have the opportunity to continue his selfless service to the people of our State and our Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise because this week, once again, the Senate of the United States has the opportunity to create jobs, to find a way to work together to make a real difference in the long-term strength of this Nation, and to finally punch back against this recession which has taken so much from the working families of our States.

I rise in support of the Rebuilding America Jobs Act, a bill that will invest $60 billion in our Nation's crumbling infrastructure and put hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work.

Investments in America's infrastructure are investments in America's future, and they could not come at a more critical time for our country, our communities, or our future.

The rest of the world is pouring money into its infrastructure because they know it will not only make it easier for them to recover from this recession; they know it will make them more competitive for their long-term future, for their people, for their countries, for their economies. So at a time when our competitors are pouring money into fixing, expanding, building their infrastructure, we have turned off the spigot. We are starving our roads and our bridges, our sewers and our water systems, our tunnels, our ports, our runways, our railroad tracks. We are starving them of the repairs they need to function properly--not just today but to lay the groundwork for our competitiveness for the next generation of Americans.

China, one of our greatest economic competitors, is spending 9 percent of its GDP on infrastructure. As anyone who has visited China in recent years knows, all across the nation of China there are gleaming new highway systems, brandnew ports, brandnew airports and runways, brandnew transportation infrastructure that connects newly built cities leaping from the ground as if by magic because they have invested enormous amounts in a modern infrastructure. Europe broadly is investing 5 percent of GDP in modernizing their infrastructure. In the United States, where modern infrastructure has for a generation made us the envy of the world, we are investing just 2 percent--just 2 percent--of our GDP. This is foolish.

Few people argue that infrastructure isn't important. In fact, it is one of the few things that seem to enjoy broad support in this Chamber, in this city, and in this country. Folks as disparate as the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agree that investing in modernizing our infrastructure is critical, not just for putting Americans back to work but getting America working for our country's future. They both support the idea of an infrastructure bank because they know investing in infrastructure isn't just about rebuilding our roads, it is about rebuilding our economy.

When companies make decisions about where to locate, about where to build a new factory, about where to expand production, about where to lease a new office, infrastructure is always at or near the top of their list. Proximity to a highway means everything if someone is going to run or expand a factory. Being close to a port is critical if their products need to be exported overseas. Access to airports and railways is imperative if someone wants to do business outside their community or our country. High-speed Internet can be every bit as important as these century-old transportation technologies and can be every bit as important as clean water, modern ports or new railroads.

Infrastructure is important in every State of our Nation and especially so in my coastal State of Delaware. The Port of Wilmington brings 4 million tons of goods through Delaware each year, providing high-wage, high-skilled jobs for the longshoremen and the communities immediately around our port that rely so much on its vital link to the global economy. Railways allow Amtrak to connect businessmen and women from New York to our financial services sector, to our legal and banking community in Wilmington, and it is one of the busiest railroad stations in America. I-95, the east coast corridor, connects truckers and motorists up and down the east coast to our little State.

But as folks have known for too long, one of the worst choke points in the whole East Coast on I-95 was in our State. I used to get calls all the time in my role as county executive because folks mistakenly thought it was somehow my role to modernize this highway. It was John F. Kennedy who cut the ribbon on this modern interstate highway, and we, frankly, have failed to invest in keeping up with the times, in keeping up with the growth in traffic, in keeping up with the tempo of global commerce since then.

Delaware has finally solved these problems. With the leadership of the Obama administration and this Chamber, the investments that were made in infrastructure over the last 2 years, we finally have solved that chokepoint on I-95. Today, motorists move through at great speeds--pay their tolls to Delaware, yes--and are able to get on their way, north or south, and engage in commerce at the speed that the modern economy demands. That is what we seek to do nationwide. That is what the Rebuilding America Jobs Act can do.

For the last 25 or 30 years, we have been building off the infrastructure built by our parents' generation, hoping that a little bandage here, a little ointment there, a little wire, a little bubble gum would be enough to get us through another year. But that is not a strategy for laying the groundwork for a great future for our children. It is not even a strategy for keeping up. The chokepoints on America's roads can't be allowed to choke America's economy for the next generation. One-third of our Nation's major roadways are in poor or even mediocre condition, and one-quarter of our bridges have been rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. We have even faced the human suffering and the reputational disaster of having bridges collapse across this country in recent years. We have failed to invest in our future. As a country, we can keep swerving to avoid these potholes, but eventually we are going to hit them.

The Rebuilding America Jobs Act would fill that pothole, would make smooth the rough places of this Nation, and accelerate our economic growth for the future. I am a cosponsor of the Rebuilding America Jobs Act because this bill would fill the pothole we have been avoiding for decades. It would rebuild 150,000 miles of American roadways, maintain 4,000 miles of train tracks, upgrade 150 miles of airport runways. It would restore critical drinking water and wastewater systems for our communities, and strengthen our energy infrastructure. In short, it would make us competitive. It would put people back to work. It would get us on the right road to a sustained recovery. It would put hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work in that sector of economy that took the first and hardest hit from the recession.

More than 2 million Americans who worked in construction have lost their jobs since this tragic recession hit, including 8,000 in my home State of Delaware alone, and we have thousands of folks in the skilled building trades ready to go. They need us to get over our differences, find a way past these endless, mindless filibusters, and get them to work. This week we have an opportunity to invest in those people and invest in our country. Infrastructure is such a smart investment, and in this economy and in this competitive

global environment where our allies and competitors are outstripping our investment because they see clearly the road to the future, we simply cannot afford to continue to refuse to act.

It was 1 year ago today that the people of Delaware elected me to represent them in Washington. Every day since I have wondered when this Chamber was finally going to come together across the partisan divide and start moving on jobs. The persistent partisanship here that has plagued this body is in my view not worthy of the very real human needs of the people who sent us here.

Last month, folks in this Congress, mostly from the other party, prevented us from acting on jobs--not once, not twice, but several times. I do not understand the strategy here, but the endless filibusters must stop. I know there is debate over how we are going to pay for this particular proposal to put $60 billion into infrastructure, but as Senator Bingaman commented just before me, this is a modest increase in revenue from the very wealthiest Americans that I believe is justified in this critical economic time. Too many of my neighbors, too many of my constituents, are out of work.

I don't think we have a choice. We need to act. The President is right, we cannot wait to act. The Rebuilding America Jobs Act not only invests in America's jobs for today but in our economy tomorrow. We cannot wait any longer to fill this pothole. This bill deserves bipartisan support and I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for it this week.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to honor the work of a distinguished Delawarean who, though known for his paintings, will long be remembered for a contribution to our State that extends much farther than the reach of his brush.

Edward J. Loper, Sr., saw the world a little differently than the rest of us, and he spent his lifetime trying to let us in on the secret. He had such a rich appreciation of color that he was once described as the ``Prophet of Color.'' He was a great talent and a great teacher. He captured the beauty and vibrancy of Delaware with memorable style, bold brushwork and an engaging palette.

One of his paintings--a scene from the Wawaset Park neighborhood of Wilmington--hangs in my office. It perfectly captures the vivid contrast in color and creative use of light for which he has become so well known. It tells the story of a bright fall day, subtly emphasizing the reds and yellows of the fall foliage to innocently capture the heightened visuals of the season.

That he was an African American defined his struggle but not his art. He painted landscapes, street scenes and still lifes, and always with oil paints. He didn't like being confined to a studio, and would insist on painting his subjects in person.

Once, in his youth, he won a painting competition and proudly showed up to the ceremony to collect his award. It turned out, he was the first African American to have won the award and those in the room were aghast. Most wouldn't shake his hand. It wasn't the first time Ed Loper had been stung by discrimination, nor would it be the last.

Though Ed first picked up a brush at age 3, it was when he went to work at a division of the Works Progress Administration during the Great Depression that he really learned to paint. He was later hired by Jeannette Eckman, who was in charge of the Federal Arts Project, and much of his artwork would go on to be housed in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. He couldn't be tied down to any one particular style and a wide range of artists, including Van Gogh, Van Ruisdael, Corot, El Greco, Cezanne, Picasso, Pollock, Tintoretto, Titian, and Veronese, are said to have inspired him.

Loper once said, ``Once you learn to see as an artist, the world will never look the same again.'' For 60 years, he taught hundreds of students to see the world differently. He had a reputation for being tough on his students, but each one earned a greater appreciation for that which Loper pursued his entire life: ``real art.''

He leaves behind a great legacy, not only in the works that adorn the walls of homes and galleries around the world, but in the constellation of artists he nurtured. He will be greatly missed by his family and the community he called ``home.''

Mr. COONS. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise to honor the 2012 recipient of the Delaware Teacher of the Year Award, Mrs. Amber Augustus. For over 7 years, Mrs. Augustus has been providing Delaware children with an exceptional education in the fields of Social Studies, Math, and Science. Every day Amber approaches teaching with an unyielding determination and passion that fosters a wonderful learning environment for her students. Today, I give thanks to her and all the teachers across the state of Delaware who help foster a love for learning and a desire for knowledge with every student they teach.

It is essential that we continue to take the time to honor excellent educators who are devoted to preparing the next generation of young adults. Day in and day out, teachers and educators across the country are tasked with the enormous responsibility of preparing our children for their futures and helping them to achieve their dreams. It is imperative that we encourage our teachers and thank them for inspiring our youth to be all that they can be. Mr. President, teachers like Amber Augustus are shining examples of the generous and giving spirit of the American people.

I congratulate Mrs. Amber Augustus on being named the 2012 Delaware Teacher of the Year. Her hard work and dedication to her students and the state of Delaware is greatly appreciated. On behalf of all Delawareans, I extend my thanks to each and every teacher who was nominated for this coveted award and to the continued efforts of teachers across the country to invest in and provide quality education to America's youth.