Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 1114, a short-term one-month PATRIOT Act sunset extension bill, which is currently at the desk; that the bill be read the third time, and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I am disappointed my unanimous consent request was not agreed to. I wish to explain my action here today. The comments I am about to give are an explanation of a vote I intended to take later today.

As Senator Chambliss said just before me, the powers of the PATRIOT Act are too important for us to risk their expiration as this body considers whether to amend them or revise them. I could not agree more.

I offered a 1-month extension in order that this body may take the time that is needed and deserved to seriously debate and conduct oversight over the PATRIOT Act. This is a significant piece of national security legislation that I believe is worthy of further consideration and debate.

Law enforcement agencies--Federal, State, and local--work day in and day out to protect all of us from real threats that go largely unknown and unnoticed by most Americans. I want law enforcement to have all the appropriate tools in their toolbox to accomplish this goal.

Unfortunately, there are also, in my view, legitimate concerns about the legislation on which we are about to vote--concerns that my colleagues and I, including the occupant of the chair, on the Judiciary Committee, reviewed and addressed in detail, and in a bill ultimately passed, S. 193, which forms the core of the Leahy-Paul amendment of which I am a cosponsor. We put those provisions before this Chamber. I am disappointed we don't have consent to move forward in order to have time to debate these reforms to the PATRIOT Act. As Americans, the choice between liberty and safety is not one or the other. We expect and demand both. Balancing the two responsibly requires careful consideration to each.

We must be cognizant of our Nation's very real enemies who intend to do us harm, just as they did on September 11. It was awareness of this danger in the world that motivated this Congress, as we have heard in previous speeches, to enact the PATRIOT Act, nearly 10 years ago now, in the wake of those attacks. A grave new threat called for bold new authorities. Though I was not then in the Senate, I likely too would have voted for its passage.

But this body's passage of that act did not amount to a permanent choice of security over liberty. Because of the broad scope of the new authorities in the PATRIOT Act, the bipartisan drafters of the bill insisted upon placing key sunset provisions in the bill to ensure that Congress periodically reviewed how they were being used and assessed whether they were still essential to our security.

Even in the unnerving weeks after 9/11--an extraordinary time in the history of this Congress and this Nation--the authors of the PATRIOT Act knew that the powers they were granting needed to be monitored.

Sunsets are critical to ensuring that the PATRIOT authorities are not abused by the government. They are critical.

It's because of sunsets that every 4 years, the FBI must return to Congress and justify its use of the PATRIOT Act overall and three provisions in particular: the roving wiretap, the lone wolf authority, and Sec. 215 orders, which allow the government to demand virtually any document or other evidence pertaining to an individual from a third party.

Sunsets only work, however, if we in Congress have the innate courage to ask the difficult questions when they arise. If, instead, Congress shies away from the tough debate and simply extends the sunsets for another 4 years, we surrender our responsibility to consider whether specific provisions should be amended, reauthorized, or allowed to expire.

If the proposed 4-year extension passes without amendment, it will have been 9 years before Congress votes on reforms to PATRIOT--9 years.

What is the point of having sunsets in this bill if we are going to ignore our oversight responsibilities?

Regretfully, I cannot support any measure that extends controversial and searching PATRIOT authorities until 2015 if this body does not first consider whether the act is in need of amendment. And so I must.

The Judiciary Committee did exactly what it is supposed to do and has worked for months on improving the PATRIOT Act ahead of this deadline. It was a difficult, bipartisan debate but the bill we produced is strong and deserved to be considered by the full body. Chairman Leahy deserves credit for crafting a set of commonsense, responsible amendments.

In each of the last two Congresses, the Judiciary Committee reported a bipartisan PATRIOT reauthorization bill. In each case, the bills would have made important revisions to PATRIOT without compromising national security. Also in each case, the bills were reported out in plenty of time for this full body to consider them. In each case, no floor action was taken until such a late hour that meaningful debate over the expiring provisions has been precluded.

The Judiciary-reported bill, S. 193, which forms the basis of the Leahy-Paul amendment, deserves consideration. It deserves consideration because our serious consideration of reforms sends the strong message that the PATRIOT authorities are not a blank check, that we in Congress are watching closely to make sure that the use of PATRIOT is consistent with our shared national respect for individual liberty and freedom.

The Leahy-Paul amendment also deserves consideration because the last 5 years have shown us that substantive revisions to PATRIOT are called- for and, indeed, necessary. I would like to speak briefly about just one necessary change, those to the national security letter program.

National security letters, or NSLs are administrative subpoenas that allow the government to demand subscriber information from third parties without even having to go to a judge. These orders are also extraordinary in that they prohibit recipients from telling anyone of their existence.

In 2007 and 2008, the Department of Justice inspector general found massive abuses in the NSL Program, with tens of thousands of NSLs issued for purposes that had nothing to do with national security. Further, in 2008, a court found that the gag order in each NSL was unconstitutional.

Plainly, NSLs are in need of revision, both to bring them in line with the Constitution and to guard against abuses that have nothing to do with national security. I support legislation that would require that DOJ maintain sufficient internal guidelines to ensure that NSLs are only issued when the agents issuing them state facts that show relevance to national security. I also favor amending the gag order so that any recipient can immediately challenge it in court.

These simple reforms as well as the others contained in the Leahy- Paul amendment, do not make our Nation more vulnerable to attack. That is why, in 2010, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence sent a letter to Congress expressing the view that legislation almost identical to Leahy-Paul ``strikes the right balance by both reauthorizing these essential national security tools and enhancing statutory protections for civil liberties and privacy in the exercise of these and related authorities.''

These reforms make our Nation more secure because they strengthen our place in the world as the cradle of liberty.

I don't want to repeal the PATRIOT Act, but at this moment we have a choice, and a chance--our last chance for 4 years--we can push forward with a bill that does nothing to improve PATRIOT--nothing to factor in everything that is changed in the last 5 years, or we can vote down this long-term extension, vote for a short-term extension and move to debate of the reforms that the Judiciary Committee has already worked up.

The PATRIOT Act is important to our national security, but I cannot support the abdication of Congress's role in strengthening it.

If I might, in summation, simply say this: If we were today to pass a 4-year extension, without amendment or revision, it will have been 9 years that Congress does not act in any substantive way on the amendments. I join Senator Leahy in intending to vote ``no'' today, not because I believe the PATRIOT Act is fundamentally flawed or because I believe the United States doesn't face real enemies, but because I think this Congress has not taken seriously its very real oversight responsibilities, its need to strike that balance. The Judiciary Committee did that hard work. For this Congress to not amend this bill with the simple balanced and reasonable amendment offered in the Leahy- Paul amendment, I believe I am compelled to strike the balance between security and liberty on the side of liberty today, by saying this body has failed to act and to appropriately conduct thorough oversight of this bill before we send it 4 years into the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2011, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ten Years After 9/11: Is Intelligence Reform Working? Part II.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 19, 2011, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

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 19, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2011, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Small Business Recovery: Progress Report on Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 Implementation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2011, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2011, at 3:30 p.m., to hold an African Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Next Steps in Cote d'Ivoire.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Consumer Privacy and Protection in the Mobile Marketplace.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Public Transportation: Priorities and Challenges for Reauthorization.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 19, 2011, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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

Madam President, I rise this morning to commemorate National Police Week and to speak to the service of the brave men and women in local law enforcement. But, first, I feel compelled to make a comment in response to the exchange between the majority leader and the Republican leader, to simply speak, if I could, briefly about the ongoing pain each and every working American family feels when they go to the gas station.

With the price of gasoline at an alltime high, with the price of gasoline flirting with $4 a gallon, with the price of oil retreating from an alltime high, and with, most importantly, oil company profits gushing through the roof and hitting an alltime high, Members of our party, Members of this body came forward yesterday with a bill which got more than 50 votes but failed to hit the 60 needed in this body to make for cloture, which would have made significant progress on dealing with our deficit.

We just heard a comment on the floor that we need to stop picking winners and losers and need to move forward in helping America end its dependence on foreign energy. I could not agree more because the expenditures through our Tax Code--the billions and billions of dollars in needless expenditures through our Tax Code--that continue to subsidize some of the most wildly profitable corporations in American history is exactly that, picking winners, and the losers are the American people.

When I go home to my State--I know, Madam President, when you go home to your State--I hear people day in and day out say: Why can't you do more to help create decent jobs, to deal with the deficit and, more than anything, to stop the oil companies, which are despoiling our natural resources and picking our pockets at the pump.

This is not picking on one particular industry. This is rationally looking at our immense tax expenditures through the code and saying: There is a time here for us to stop. We would save literally $21 billion by fiscal year 2021; that is, over the next decade, $21 billion in deficit reduction. That does not solve the problem we need to come together and address as a body--both parties, both Chambers of this great Congress--but it is a significant downpayment.

I am from a State where we produce very little in the way of oil or coal or gas but where we consume a lot of energy and where we have lots of opportunities to invest in alternative energy--investments that would create new jobs, a competitive platform for the United States as we enter this new century and that could, frankly, help sustain our economy going forward.

The votes cast yesterday to sustain these senseless tax breaks and credits, to help keep afloat the most profitable companies in American history, strike me as doing exactly what we were just urged not to do-- picking winners, where the average American is, in fact, the loser.

It is my hope we will continue to look, with a sharp and clear eye, at the billions of dollars, the more than $35 billion in first-quarter profits made by the five largest American oil firms. I have nothing against corporations making profits. In fact, that is what helps propel our economy. As we try to recover from this terrible recession, having a profitable private sector is the best way forward to help create jobs and to help grow our economy and to help deal with Federal revenues.

But the spending through our Tax Code--something that has accumulated on the underside of the American economy over the last decade--has to be stopped. We have to find ways to plug the holes through which billions in potential Federal revenue are leaking. I frankly think it is time for us to have a sensible national energy policy. And continuing to defend decades-old, needless tax breaks for major oil companies so that they can engage in manufacturing by extracting oil from the ground, for example--one of the five that would have been ended by this bill--is just senseless.

So it is my hope that we will reconsider; that as we move forward and try to find a way together to create jobs, to reduce spending and deal with our deficits, we will look hard at some of these outdated tax breaks that make it possible for bloated oil companies to make billions of dollars of profit off working Americans who pay too much at the pump.

Mr. President, this week we are honoring the service and sacrifice of Americans who serve us as police.

May 15 to May 21 is National Police Week, and Americans all across this country will be recognizing those who serve and have served in police departments in communities from coast to coast. Law enforcement personnel and their families will also be coming together to hold memorials for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives in the line of duty.

National Police Week holds special significance to me because for the 6 years I served as county executive in New Castle County, DE, I was responsible for a police force that worked hard day and night to keep our community safe. Every year in May, I would gather with our law enforcement officers, with the Fraternal Order of Police, which so ably represented them, with the families of those who had served, and with the families of the one member of our law enforcement community, the New Castle County Police, who had been killed in the line of duty.

I often had differences with the Fraternal Order of Police in my 6 years of leadership, but I will tell you, they were great and tireless partners in standing up for the working men and woman who kept us safe each and every day. They kept us focused on officer safety, and they kept us focused on providing for them the equipment and the training and the support they so richly deserve.

I will tell you that each and every week that I would have a tough week, when we had difficult times dealing with local budgets or coming to compromise and making reasonable progress in the county, if I ever for a moment felt sorry for myself as I drove home from the county government center, all I needed to do was to turn on my police radio in my county car and listen to dispatch. There was always something going on. As every patrol car went out, as every squad responded to crises, I was reminded day-in and day-out of the incredible selfless service of the men and women of local law enforcement all over this country, these dedicated men and women who sacrifice time away from their families to put themselves daily in harm's way. And sadly, too often, it finds them.

Since the beginning of 2009, 122 American police officers have lost their lives in service to their local community. Today, I wish to focus on one--Patrolman Chad Spicer of Georgetown, DE. A Georgetown native, Chad attended the Sussex Central High School and graduated from Del Tech in 1999. Following 4 years with our State department of corrections, he began service with the police department in Bridgeville, later in the town of Laurel. In 2008, Chad joined the force in his hometown, fulfilling his greatest childhood dream.

On September 1, 2009, Chad and his partner, Corporal Shawn Brittingham, were in pursuit of a vehicle containing suspects in a robbery. The car abruptly stopped. Before the two officers had a chance to get out, a suspect fired a single gunshot at close range, killing Chad and, in a ricochet, seriously wounded his partner. The suspects were eventually apprehended and have been brought to trial.

Patrolman Chad Spicer was only 29 years old when he was murdered doing his job. He is survived by his fiancee, his beautiful young daughter Aubrey, his parents Ruth Ann and Norman, a brother, two sisters, and a family of fellow officers in Georgetown and across our State of Delaware.

His funeral service was one of the most moving experiences I have had in my adult life. Thousands of law enforcement professionals, men and women, and family members from literally all across our country gathered to pay tribute to this brave, likeable, dedicated young man who gave his life in the protection of our community.

Earlier this month, the people of Georgetown, DE, erected a memorial to Chad and his courage and the sacrifice he made for all of us. Georgetown Chief of Police Topping noted that: Everyone in town knew and liked Chad, even those from the roughest part of town, even those who were on the receiving end of his service to our community. Chad died protecting the community where he was born and raised, and losing him to senseless violence like that had a devastating impact on the people of Georgetown and on our whole State.

Chad was the first Delaware police officer to die from wounds received in the line of duty since 1993. His loss is a constant reminder that law enforcement officers all over our country live with the daily reality that each time they go out on patrol, every time they report for duty, their lives may be put on the line as they serve their communities and our country.

This is why I think it is so important that the Federal Government continue to strengthen local police department capacities through things such as the Federal vest grant program that helps local law enforcement purchase bulletproof vests and other critical police supplies. It is so important to me that when law enforcement--Federal, State, and local--work together, we can succeed in keeping Americans safe. There is always more we can do. This is why the Judiciary Committee will be holding a field hearing later next month in Wilmington, DE, to explore ways we can better improve the collaboration and cooperation between Federal and local law enforcement.

While we honor our men and women of law enforcement every day and every year, during National Police Week, we celebrate their service and sacrifice and thank them for being forever on watch.

In memory of Patrolman Chad Spicer and all of the other law enforcement professionals who have made the ultimate sacrifice, I today stand in memory of their service.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to support Goodwin Liu's nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Years ago, in the early 1990s when I was working for the national I Have a Dream Foundation, I first crossed paths with Goodwin Liu, who was then a senior program officer with the Corporation for National Service. An issue

had arisen with regard to the corporation's support of one of our foundation's programs. We were running an AmeriCorps program. Mr. Liu very quickly distinguished himself through his competence and obvious commitment to education and national service. In fact, my interactions with him were so positive and memorable that 18 years later, when I had joined this body and heard of his nomination, I immediately remembered him and was anxious to find out what he had been up to in the intervening years.

The opportunity to reconnect with Goodwin Liu as part of his confirmation process has turned out to be one of the real pleasures of this job. It is readily apparent to me, as well as to so many Senators on both sides of the aisle who have had the opportunity to meet with him, to question him, and get to know him better, that Professor Goodwin Liu is a good, decent, bright, and engaging man.

His career, in my view, is marked by a profound commitment to service, from his time working at the Corporation for National Service, the organization of our Federal Government that supports VISTA and AmeriCorps, and all sorts of different commitments to national service across our country, to his later work as a clinical and summer associate while in law school, to his work for the Department of Education as a young attorney, to his service as a judicial clerk, and then his scholarship in support of opportunities for all Americans.

Professor Liu has been guided by a desire to leave the world a better place than he found it. Despite these many positive personal qualities to recommend him, it is, perhaps, something of an understatement to say that Goodwin Liu's has been controversial.

First nominated in February of 2010, and then after a searching and difficult nomination hearing, and a vote here, a renomination in January of this year, a second confirmation hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee, in which I was able to participate, we now stand on the verge of a cloture vote required for us to even get to the consideration of his nomination.

Professor Liu is a prolific scholar, who has written on a number of topics relating to educational rights and public schooling, among others.

When I heard the attacks against Professor Liu, I was shocked, but concerned. The charges that are being leveled against Professor Liu-- that he is a radical who would use the bench to engage in judicial activism--are serious. So I took it upon myself to meet with Professor Liu, to review his record, and to come to my own conclusions.

I can say with certainty that Professor Liu will be a first-rate judge in the finest traditions of the legal profession. Professor Liu knows the difference between lecturing and judging. He knows that the role of a judge is not to advocate but to follow the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court. Goodwin Liu will obey the law. We can and should ask no more.

If we take a step back from the partisan rhetoric, I think we can find broad agreement across the aisle that a judicial candidate ought to be evaluated according to his legal ability and experience, his standing within the legal profession, his integrity, and his temperament. Professor Liu rates extraordinarily highly in all of these areas.

Professor Liu's academic and professional qualifications demonstrate that he is a lawyer of the utmost ability with a broad range of experience. He was a Rhodes scholar and holds a law degree from Yale University, where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal. He went on to clerk for one of the great intellects on the DC Circuit, Judge David Tatel. After that, he clerked for Justice Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. Since that time, he has worked in private practice and earned a tenured professorship at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. At Berkeley, he has been a prolific scholar of exceptionally high regard.

In addition to a sterling resume, Professor Liu enjoys the highest esteem of his colleagues. Noted conservative scholar John Yoo has spoken out in support of his nomination, as has Kenneth Starr. He is the recipient of the University of California's highest teaching award. Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute, has said that Professor Liu's writings ``exhibit fresh, independent thinking and intellectual honesty.'' This high opinion of Professor Liu is broadly shared. In giving Professor Liu its highest rating of ``Unanimously Well Qualified,'' the American Bar Association interviewed scores of attorneys and judges who have worked with Professor Liu and, evidently, found that his reputation is one of impartiality, integrity, and great ability. For nominees to our circuit courts of appeal, we could ask no less.

Professor Liu's activity as a noted legal and policy scholar is, in my view, being used unfairly to impugn his judicial temperament. In meeting with Professor Liu, he explained to me that he understands and respects the difference between scholarship and jurisprudence. Academics explore the contours and limits of the law, often advocating for policy outcomes. Judges, on the other hand, apply legal precedent to come to the conclusion that the law compels, without prejudice or a policy agenda.

When Professor Liu has been asked to apply the law, as would a judge, any criticism that he allows policy preferences to cloud his judgment does not pass muster. As an example, though Professor Liu has said that his personal views are that individuals should be treated equally, regardless of sexual orientation. Even so, he testified before the California State Senate in 2008 that California's controversial Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages, would pass muster under the California constitution. This is a concrete example, from before his nomination to public office, that Professor Liu is capable and willing to set aside personal preferences and views when called upon to render a legal judgement.

I also examined Professor Liu's scholarship on the topics of education and welfare, to which his opponents claim he would create a constitutional right if confirmed to the bench. I would be concerned if these charges have merit, but they do not. Rather, they reflect a distortion of what he has actually written. Professor Liu has repeatedly clarified his unexceptional belief that Congress, and not the courts, have the power to create new fundamental rights through amendment to our Constitution.

An objective review of Professor Liu's qualifications, temperament, and intellect lead to the conclusion that he is an outstanding nominee and should be confirmed to the bench. Former Representative Tom Campbell, a five-term Republican Member of the House, agrees. In urging his swift confirmation, Representative Campbell specifically praised Professor Liu's reputation for, quote ``integrity, fair-mindedness, and collegiality.''

I call upon all of my colleagues to take a fresh look at Professor Liu and to come to their own conclusions about him. In my opinion, Professor Liu is a dedicated public servant who has undergone intense scrutiny over the past 15 months at great personal sacrifice. Too often, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that judicial and executive nominees are also people, with families, careers, and other responsibilities in their lives. The confirmation process can exact a steep cost and, as a result, many qualified and decent individuals either withdraw or decline to submit to it in the first place.

Professor Liu is an exceptional nominee to the Circuit Court. He has borne the challenges of confirmation with grace and dignity, as is in keeping with his character and dedication to public service. In voting on the petition to invoke cloture, I ask my colleagues to consider the content of Professor Liu's character. Listen to those who know him above the interest groups who have sensationalized his nomination. I ask them to consider his bipartisan support from those who work with him and those who know him best.

I know Goodwin Liu. I trust him and know he will make a fine judge. I urge my colleagues to support his confirmation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, every one of us knows where we were at the moment we heard the tragic news of the attacks on this Nation on September 11. And I trust that all of us will long treasure the moment we first heard the great news last night that Osama bin Laden, after a decade of determined

and diligent work by our Armed Forces and by the men and women of the American intelligence community, had at long last been captured and killed. The successful operation by the Navy SEALs team yesterday was the capstone of 10 years of distinguished and honorable service by our brave men and women in uniform.

In Afghanistan, in Iraq, and around the world, literally tens of thousands of Americans over this past decade have faced battle resolutely, carried out their mission with valor, and made all of us proud. When I visited our troops in Afghanistan in February, I saw firsthand their determination, their level of professionalism, and their commitment to this important and long task.

I hope, as we face the days ahead and the uncertainty of what will be the path forward in our continuing conflict with al-Qaida and all who would do us harm, there is no doubt about the determination of the American people about our resolve to pursue, capture, and kill all who would plan attacks on the United States and on innocent civilians around the world.

I wanted to pause today and simply reflect on all who have sacrificed so much. There are hundreds of Delawareans currently serving in Afghanistan, some on active duty, some with the Reserves, some with the National Guard. My wife and I and our family pray every night, as so many do in our Nation, for those who serve us overseas, including personal friends of ours, Brooke James, Troy Baucus, and Jeff Steinberg, who are folks who are on repeat deployment, whose families we know, along with hundreds of others. They have made the sacrifice of deployment. There are many others--17 in the case of Delaware--who have made the ultimate sacrifice in this decade of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, including SGT Sean Moudy, who grew up next door to me, and SrA Liz Loncki, the first Delaware woman lost in combat, and many others who are mourned by their families and communities.

Tomorrow, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee begins a series of six hearings on our path forward in Afghanistan and a review of our relationship with Pakistan, our alliances in the region, and the incredible investments that we need to continue to make to sustain our effort to take the fight to those around the world who would do us harm.

I wanted to come to the floor today and, for a brief moment, pause and think about what this historic moment means to the American people.

It was just a decade ago in the attacks of 9/11 that a group of determined and hardened terrorists, led by Osama bin Laden, believed they had struck a blow, believed they had hit their target when four aircraft that had been commandeered were turned into missiles and aimed at principal targets that they thought were the centerpieces of America. Two of them succeeded in striking the Twin Towers--knocking down columns of steel and glass. One of them succeeded in striking the Pentagon and setting ablaze the center of our military might. One more, were it not for the intervention of incredibly brave American citizens, might well have struck this very building we meet in today or the White House.

They did succeed in tragically taking thousands of innocent lives. They did succeed in striking a tough blow to our economy. They did succeed in surprising us with an unexpectedly vicious attack on thousands of innocent civilians. But they utterly failed to strike at our spirit. They failed to knock down our resolve. I know that around the world many marveled while thousands of folks flooded out of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, as hundreds of determined volunteers and public servants flooded in, risking their lives and, in many cases, sacrificing their own lives to try to save some of their fellow countrymen. Most important, in the months afterward, millions of Americans took up the cause of volunteering to rebuild and restore our communities, and thousands volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces.

It is their resolve, their commitment, their professionalism, the great leadership of our Armed Forces, and the decisions made by President Obama and Vice President Biden in leading our Nation today that have brought us to this moment.

I want to close by saying that ultimately those who struck us on 9/11 missed their target. They misunderstood our spirit and our resolve as a nation. Last night, on the other side of the world, justice was served. The tragedy of those who were lost and the sacrifice of those who chose to serve have never been forgotten. But last night, on the other side of the world, justice was served.

Let there be no doubt among anyone around the world who would wish us harm, who would today plot to carry forward the terrible terrorist dreams of this now-dead man, Osama bin Laden: Our spirit is not broken. Our resolve is unbending. Justice will be served.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the contributions made each day by our Nation's 3,068 county governments and the men and women who serve in county government. They are tireless public servants whose daily efforts to ensure that local government works for all Americans are honored during National County Government Month, which takes place each April.

As a former county executive for New Castle County, DE, I know that county governments are responsible for providing essential services important to our communities. New Castle County provides critical services in public safety, land use, parks and libraries, sewers, and economic development. Many other counties provide a broad range of services, such as maintaining roads, bridges, and water systems, and operating airports and other transit, and delivering critical health care services. Counties provide law enforcement, courtroom, and jail services, schools, and numerous social services for children, seniors and families, and often serve as the first lines of defense for emergency response and preparedness.

Since 1991, the National Association of Counties, or NACo, has encouraged counties across America to highlight their programs and services in order to raise awareness of the important role county governments play in our national life. National County Government Month is a great opportunity to recognize this.

The National County Government Month theme for 2011 is ``Serving Our Veterans, Armed Forces, and Their Families.'' NACo president Glen Whitley, county judge for Tarrant County, TX, is urging all counties to honor and to thank their residents who have served or are currently serving our Nation in the military. In addition, Judge Whitley is urging counties to showcase their many important services to America's veterans, military servicemembers, and their families, such as those relating to physical and mental health, housing, employment, and the justice system.

In New Castle County, as in many counties across the country, we felt the impact of the call to duty on servicemembers and their families, as county employees many in our public safety community deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan with units of the Reserve and National Guard. I am pleased to join Judge Whitley and county officials across the country in honoring servicemembers and veterans and highlighting the important services county governments provide.

National County Government Month also provides the Senate with an opportunity to acknowledge that county governments with the help of the National Association of Counties are working together to restore the partnership among all levels of government to serve communities across America better. We in the Senate share our constituents with county government officials and face common challenges. It is incumbent upon us to recognize the men and women who work tirelessly within local governments and provide essential services directly to our constituents. They deserve our sincerest gratitude.

I encourage all of my colleagues and all Americans to celebrate April as National County Government Month with their home counties and to recognize the important role county governments play in their communities and the critical services they provide.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my first bill in the Senate, one I believe will promote competitiveness and spur the growth of sustainable middle class jobs. As I noted in my maiden speech in January, the people of Delaware sent me here with a mission to work with my colleagues to help create jobs and get our economy moving again.

My bill, the Job Creation Through Innovation Act, will do just that. By making strategic investments in research and development and incentives for economic growth, this legislation will help companies in Delaware and across the United States innovate, create jobs, and compete globally.

First, it will simplify, expand, and make permanent the Research and Development Tax Credit. When this credit was enacted into law in 1981, the United States was the best place in the world to perform research and development. Thirty years and fourteen temporary extensions later, we still do not have a permanent R&D credit on the books. Passing temporary extensions, one after another, undermines the very purpose of this credit. Whenever there is uncertainty about the credit's future availability, businesses discount its value, and we reap only the counterproductive effect of reducing the credit's benefit to our economy. Research and development projects are never stop-and-go, and the R&D tax credit shouldn't be either.

Second, many new small businesses today are ineligible for the R&D credit, because they are not yet profitable. My bill will create a new Small Business Innovation Credit, which will provide much-needed support to these start-ups. Currently, the R&D credit is non- refundable, so only those companies with income tax liability benefit from it. This poses a special problem for research-intensive start-up businesses--just the sort of businesses that have the potential to develop revolutionary technologies and products. Such firms often spend their first several years operating at a loss while spending a great deal of money on research and development. The Small Business Innovation Credit will address this by allowing companies with 500 employees or fewer to claim a refundable R&D credit.

Another provision of my bill is a new Domestic Manufacturing Tax Credit, which will provide additional tax incentives to companies that both conduct research and manufacture their products right here in America. This will reward companies that invest in America and give multinational firms another reason to keep manufacturing jobs from being shipped overseas.

The Job Creation Through Innovation Act would additionally extend the Section 1603 Treasury Grants Program--or ``TGP''--and the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit. Both of these were authorized in the Recovery Act and are designed to promote clean energy technology and investment. Both have also had a significant and beneficial impact on energy project developers and manufacturers in my home state of Delaware and other states in the past 2 years.

The TGP provides payments for specified energy property in lieu of investment tax credits and production tax credits. Economic certainty is critical to wind, solar, biofuel, geothermal, and other clean energy projects, and, according to a survey of leading participants in the tax equity market, without an extension of the TGP the anticipated total financing available for renewable resource projects would decrease significantly, should it be left to expire at the end of 2011. My bill extends the TGP for another year.

The Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit, also called the 48C Incentive, provides a thirty percent investment tax credit to domestic manufacturers who build or expand facilities that produce a range of clean energy products and technologies. These credits can also be used to leverage private investment, and it is estimated that this tax credit has to date helped businesses raise more than $5.4 billion from just a $2.3 billion Federal investment. It is also estimated to have created 58,000 jobs. My bill will provide an additional $5 billion in incentives, of which up to $1.5 billion would be made available to companies whose applications are already pending under the original solicitation.

In my maiden speech in January, I spoke at length about the new agenda for manufacturing I intend to promote during my service in the Senate, and this bill is just the first step. I am proud that Delaware is already on the cutting-edge of the high-tech and clean energy manufacturing revolution I believe will be the key to winning the future.

While we are all rightly focused now on the deficit and cutting our budget, we must also think ahead and make those long-term investments that will boost our economy, incentivize clean energy resources and manufacturing, and grow the jobs we need to sustain a strong middle class in this country for years to come. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort, and I commend those who already have.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my first bill in the Senate, one I believe will promote competitiveness and spur the growth of sustainable middle class jobs. As I noted in my maiden speech in January, the people of Delaware sent me here with a mission to work with my colleagues to help create jobs and get our economy moving again.

My bill, the Job Creation Through Innovation Act, will do just that. By making strategic investments in research and development and incentives for economic growth, this legislation will help companies in Delaware and across the United States innovate, create jobs, and compete globally.

First, it will simplify, expand, and make permanent the Research and Development Tax Credit. When this credit was enacted into law in 1981, the United States was the best place in the world to perform research and development. Thirty years and fourteen temporary extensions later, we still do not have a permanent R&D credit on the books. Passing temporary extensions, one after another, undermines the very purpose of this credit. Whenever there is uncertainty about the credit's future availability, businesses discount its value, and we reap only the counterproductive effect of reducing the credit's benefit to our economy. Research and development projects are never stop-and-go, and the R&D tax credit shouldn't be either.

Second, many new small businesses today are ineligible for the R&D credit, because they are not yet profitable. My bill will create a new Small Business Innovation Credit, which will provide much-needed support to these start-ups. Currently, the R&D credit is non- refundable, so only those companies with income tax liability benefit from it. This poses a special problem for research-intensive start-up businesses--just the sort of businesses that have the potential to develop revolutionary technologies and products. Such firms often spend their first several years operating at a loss while spending a great deal of money on research and development. The Small Business Innovation Credit will address this by allowing companies with 500 employees or fewer to claim a refundable R&D credit.

Another provision of my bill is a new Domestic Manufacturing Tax Credit, which will provide additional tax incentives to companies that both conduct research and manufacture their products right here in America. This will reward companies that invest in America and give multinational firms another reason to keep manufacturing jobs from being shipped overseas.

The Job Creation Through Innovation Act would additionally extend the Section 1603 Treasury Grants Program--or ``TGP''--and the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit. Both of these were authorized in the Recovery Act and are designed to promote clean energy technology and investment. Both have also had a significant and beneficial impact on energy project developers and manufacturers in my home state of Delaware and other states in the past 2 years.

The TGP provides payments for specified energy property in lieu of investment tax credits and production tax credits. Economic certainty is critical to wind, solar, biofuel, geothermal, and other clean energy projects, and, according to a survey of leading participants in the tax equity market, without an extension of the TGP the anticipated total financing available for renewable resource projects would decrease significantly, should it be left to expire at the end of 2011. My bill extends the TGP for another year.

The Advanced Energy Manufacturing Credit, also called the 48C Incentive, provides a thirty percent investment tax credit to domestic manufacturers who build or expand facilities that produce a range of clean energy products and technologies. These credits can also be used to leverage private investment, and it is estimated that this tax credit has to date helped businesses raise more than $5.4 billion from just a $2.3 billion Federal investment. It is also estimated to have created 58,000 jobs. My bill will provide an additional $5 billion in incentives, of which up to $1.5 billion would be made available to companies whose applications are already pending under the original solicitation.

In my maiden speech in January, I spoke at length about the new agenda for manufacturing I intend to promote during my service in the Senate, and this bill is just the first step. I am proud that Delaware is already on the cutting-edge of the high-tech and clean energy manufacturing revolution I believe will be the key to winning the future.

While we are all rightly focused now on the deficit and cutting our budget, we must also think ahead and make those long-term investments that will boost our economy, incentivize clean energy resources and manufacturing, and grow the jobs we need to sustain a strong middle class in this country for years to come. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort, and I commend those who already have.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I rise to mark National Volunteer Week and Delaware Volunteer Week. All week long throughout the Nation and across the great State of Delaware, Americans and Delawareans will be engaged in volunteer service. Volunteer opportunities include helping the homeless, tending to the environment, mentoring children in schools, and working to keep communities safer and stronger and free from fires and accidents and injuries, among many others.

Here in the Senate one can't talk about community service or national service or voluntarism without thanking and recognizing our colleague Senator Barbara Mikulski from Delaware's neighboring State of Maryland. Senator Mikulski has been the leader on voluntarism for many years, most of them alongside the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I am proud to be working with her to fight to save our national service programs.

When Delaware's tireless Governor Jack Markell was sworn into office in 2009, he decided to forgo the traditional Governor's inaugural ball and he, along with his wonderful wife, our first lady Carla Markell, instead organized a week of service projects across the State. Today that week of service continues and has become a tremendous opportunity for nonprofit organizations and community service organizations across the State to connect with Delawareans excited about teaching our children the value of voluntarism, connecting with neighbors and helping improve and strengthen our communities.

I have long believed that those who engage in voluntarism and service to others in fact get more out of it than they put in.

Voluntarism, as you know, Madam President, is a fundamental part of what it means to be American. It is a great--some would say the greatest--part of America and its cultural traditions. However, voluntarism need not be confined to my State or this week. It is something from which every American can benefit at every stage in their life.

In my view, one of the most effective voluntarism efforts in modern history is one with which I was first engaged when I was a resident briefly of the State of the Acting President pro tempore when I was working for the national ``I Have a Dream'' Foundation in New York City now many years ago.

The national AmeriCorps program--a partnership between the Federal Government and local nonprofit communities--was launched with bipartisan support, initially an idea proposed by President Bush and then enacted by President Clinton. The AmeriCorps program is now one which has had a tremendous and far-reaching impact over the last 17 years. It enables 75,000 Americans to serve annually via AmeriCorps with a very wide range of programs--programs where the funding is raised and its focus is directed by State, by State commissions of volunteers, community leaders, who help identify the best and most appropriate, most effective partners for this federally funded program that is also matched one to one with dollars from the local community. So far more than 60 million hours of community service annually has been provided by AmeriCorps members.

In Delaware, voluntarism has a long tradition and a great history, and the volunteer fire service is one of the strongest parts of that long and proud history of our State. There are more than 88 volunteer fire companies in our State. They provide the vast majority of fire suppression services for our communities.

They faced a real problem when I became county executive: a steady loss in membership. As working-class families were under more and more pressure, with both parents working, they were under more stress, more demands, and it became more difficult for people to dedicate the time and energy needed to be trained and to serve as volunteer firefighters, and, in particular, to deliver ambulance service--one of the most important aspects of our volunteer fire service.

So in partnership with our New Castle County Volunteer Firefighters Association, and with the YMCA, and with AmeriCorps, I worked tirelessly to launch a new AmeriCorps program called the Emergency Services Corps.

The Emergency Services Corps helps recruit volunteer firefighters and conducts CPR and first aid training and provides fire awareness training for schoolchildren all across our county. So far they have recruited more than 220 volunteer firefighters and logged more than 108,000 hours of service to our community in the 5 years since it was created as a partnership between all these different entities.

I just thought I would draw attention to that one example today of the hundreds of AmeriCorps programs across our country that I think are a shining example of how the young people of this country--people at all ages across this country--bring their gifts, their talents, and their spirit to volunteering.

In every generation of Americans, heeding the call to service has been the answer to our greatest challenges, and with so many out of work, suffering from hunger or facing homelessness right here in our own country, I think it is critical we all pitch in to help. It is an affirmation of our bond of citizenship and our compassion for our fellow citizens.

So I would like to encourage everyone in my State to visit the Volunteer Delaware Web site to find service opportunities this week. I am putting a link to it on my Web site at www.coons.senate.gov. For those who happen to be outside Delaware, I hope they will visit www.nationalservice.gov and participate in this National Volunteer Week.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Ian Koski of my staff for the duration of the day.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those who have spoken on this Chamber floor this afternoon to express frustration and concern about where we are as our Federal Government seems to be moving inexorably toward a shutdown this evening.

As I have worked hard with my staff here in Washington and at home to help them prepare for and explain to the people whom I represent what is going on here and why, I have struggled. I have genuinely struggled to understand why this impasse is leading, I think now inevitably, toward a government shutdown. I still remain hopeful we will be able to find some resolution in these last few hours. But I think it is critical the people of the United States understand the consequences of a government shutdown.

This isn't just about sending home Federal employees. This is going to have a significant impact on our economy, on our recovery, on working families all over this country, and I think on our reputation around the world. At a time when many of us are standing up and saying the United States and our system of democratic capitalism is a model other nations should follow, our inability as a Congress--the House and Senate working together--to reach a responsible consensus on what we all agree is one of our top priorities is profoundly frustrating to me.

I was elected by the people of Delaware and sent here to deal with three things: to try and get our private sector going again, creating high-quality, good jobs for the people of Delaware and our country; to deal with our significant deficit and our dramatic national debt and the very real challenge to our future posed by them; and to try and do it in a responsible and balanced and bipartisan way. In my view, at this point in this budget fight, from everything I have been able to hear from the press and from the leadership of my party here in this body, it has stopped being about cutting the deficit and has instead turned into a fight about ideology. If I understand correctly, as of last night at the end of the negotiations, they moved from having 60 riders, so-called, on the bill that would fund the Federal Government for the rest of the year, to down to just 1 or 2.

I thought one of the good things that came out of the 2010 election was a broad-based focus--particularly by some of the tea party, but lots of folks in our country who were upset with how Washington works-- a broad-based focus to stop having bills that were loaded up with lots of riders and lots of extraneous things and to try and have commonsense legislation that is easy to understand and that does what it is meant to do. This, as I understand it, is no longer about the deficit and about the budget. We are not being asked to consider whether we should cut $70 billion or $72 billion or $78 billion; we are instead being asked to agree to defunding title X.

Title X, a program that goes back to 1970, was enacted and signed into law by President Nixon and provides a remarkable range of health services to women all across this country. In my State of Delaware, there are 26 community health centers that are funded by title X. Just five of them are affiliated in some way with Planned Parenthood.

I wanted to come to the floor and take a moment to focus on what title X funds: preventive health services, contraceptive services, pregnancy testing, but also screening for cervical and breast cancer, screening for blood pressure, anemia, diabetes, basic infertility, health education, and referrals for other health and social services. I know and have visited several of these health centers in my State. They provide services to folks who otherwise have no access to basic health care. If I understand correctly, what has happened in this body is that we have come down to being willing to shut down the entire Federal Government over this one issue of ideology. I am embarrassed and ashamed on some level that we can't get this resolved.

As I understand it, the folks who came to Washington seeking aggressive deficit reduction and spending cuts in this fiscal year have achieved virtually all of their objectives. I think the initial goal was $100 billion. My understanding, as the Presiding Officer heard as well in our caucus lunch, is that we have agreed to up to $78 billion in cuts in this fiscal year across the board in lots of different sources of discretionary as well as other programs that can be cut this year. That is a hard concession for folks who support government action in our community and in our society to accept.

But I think one of our challenges is for the folks who may be on the other side of this debate to hear ``yes,'' to accept that we have come almost 80 percent of the way to meeting their initial goal, and to instead recognize that I think this has long since turned into a fight over ideology--over the narrow issue of women's health.

Let me give one last example, if I can, of what this means in my hometown. My Senate office in Delaware and I have been working hard for several months to follow on the example of my predecessor in this seat, Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware, and host a job fair on Monday, from 9 to 4, at the single biggest public space in Delaware, the Riverfront Arts Center. We are going to host a job fair. We have 50 employers lined up ready to interview people. We expect more than 1,000 out-of- work Delawareans to show up, resumes in hand, ready to interview and, hopefully, to be hired. If I understand the rules right, if the Federal Government shuts down tonight, my staff can't carry out this job fair on Monday.

Job one for me, and I think job one for all of us in this Chamber, is helping our private sector, helping small businesses, helping our communities connect good jobs with the folks who are out of work and seeking employment. Fortunately, in our case, we have scrambled and worked hard the last few days. The Governor of Delaware, our Department of Labor, the Delaware economic office, and other volunteers have worked hard and stepped up to make sure this job fair comes off on Monday just fine without interruption.

We need to be focused on reining in the deficit and the debt, dealing with our long-term budget, and getting folks back to work.

In conclusion, it is my hope that as a body we can come together in a commonsense way. If we need to have a vote on the floor, if we need to have a fight about access to health care for women in title X, let's have that debate, but this should be a discussion today about the deficit and about funding the operations of the Federal Government for the year ahead. I look forward and hope we can turn back to that very real work and not instead have a fight about ideology and access to women's health.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

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