Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are, obviously, struggling to find something that puts us in balance, a balance that will create more jobs, more opportunity, expand family incomes for middle-class people, and we do not seem to be getting there. We are engaged in the wrong kind of a dialog, in my judgment.

Yesterday, I voted to oppose the tax cut extenders bill that came along after long and hard thought about the consequences of my decision.

For me, voting decisions cannot be made without reflecting on my life's experiences to guide me, things that I saw as a child of a poverty-stricken family, not because my father was not willing to work, but at times during those years work was just unavailable, and it was hard going for a lot of years.

What I remember is how hard my parents struggled to try and do what could be done for my sister and myself. That was our entire family.

My father worked in mills that were common in the city of Paterson, NJ--textile mills--and there was something in the environment there that was very harmful. My father was 43 when he died. My mother was a 37-year-old widow, and I had already joined the Army. I had enlisted in the Army.

I saw what happened. My father was sick for 13 months from cancer. By the way, his brother who worked in the mills died from cancer. Their father worked in the factory, and he died at age 56 from cancer.

When my father died, 13 months after being stricken with colon cancer, what he left, besides grief, unfortunately--my mother being the sole income earner for the family, owing money for doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, you name it--overwhelmed by debt, it was necessary to go bankrupt. It is a painful experience. It is an influence, it is a memory that is very hard to deal with because it creates an atmosphere of failure.

But life turned around for me, and I am one of the most fortunate people on Earth. My wife and I have 13 grandchildren, the oldest of whom is 17, and the youngest was born 2 weeks ago. Our hopes are totally enveloped by what kind of a country our grandchildren are going to live in. Will it continue to be a free democratic society, where people still believe their children can get a job, get a good education, have a family, maintain a home, and have health care as required? Will they have the kinds of opportunities that further lead to admiration of this country and a declaration of fealty to this great Nation of ours?

I was able, after service in World War II, with the GI bill, to go and graduate from Columbia University. I then joined two friends in a startup company called ADP that now employs over 40,000 people in 23 countries. It is still headquartered in New Jersey, where we began, bringing an opportunity for companies that needed computer services to obtain it from us. We were pioneers in the field. I was a CEO and chairman of this great company. The salary for a job such as that, as you can imagine, was at a very high level.

It is with this life experience that I view my current tax obligations--or let me call them contributions to country because that is what they are--weighing them against the value of a strong nation that is able to supply employment for all able and willing to work.

I remind myself that we are in a wartime economy. I do not want to go back to ancient history, but during World War II, there was a tax required that was called the excess profits tax. It was there to help the country manage its finances because of the additional costs of war.

Now we are in a wartime economy. Every day our people face harm and, perhaps, death serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just a couple days ago, six people were killed. The death toll goes on. The injuries go on. Over 5,000 people killed in the two wars and in excess of 30,000 wounded.

So we need to have the energy pumped into our country that gives us the ability to be able to take care of the war obligation and the general functioning of our economy.

I look at the value of a country that is able to function without the kind of indebtedness that is consuming America, with other countries that are buying our bonds and financial instruments and questioning our Nation's ability to redeem our obligations. Where does all that take us?

We have to invest to grow our economy and create jobs, putting people back to work and laying a foundation for a new era of prosperity for everybody. Windfalls for the wealthiest of us do not benefit our economy or create jobs and are what got us into this fiscal mess to begin with.

That is why I oppose this bill. Yes, there are some things in the bill that are attractive. But when I think of a headline I saw in the Wall Street Journal a week ago Monday--yesterday--it said: Tax breaks for the wealthy go on, and--in not this precise language--the byline, the heading said: And unemployment benefits will continue.

Imagine that contrast: Tax breaks for the wealthy and also: Let them eat cake, let those people who do not have any income, let them--we will give them some unemployment insurance as a little bit of an incentive to make sure we get the votes to take care of the wealthiest and most fortunate in terms of assets in our society.

This bill wastes money on tax breaks for those not needing them, giving the average millionaire a tax cut of more than $100,000 per year. Contrast that with a per-family income across the country in the neighborhood of $50,000, and here an individual gets a $100,000 tax reduction, tax break. This was money that could be used to pay down the deficit, create more jobs for middle-class families. So why does this bill dedicate so much of its cost to helping those who known economists agree will not use that money to boost the economy?

President Obama gave us the answer this week. He said that for Republicans, including deep tax cuts for the most fortunate is their holy grail. That is what President Obama said. That is what the Republicans are looking for most energetically: deep tax cuts for their holy grail--the wealthiest. On the other side of the aisle, it is not working families with whom they are concerned. It is not the unemployed. It is not the struggling small business. On the other side of the aisle, primarily they are concerned with only one economic constituency: the top 1 percent of our wage earners.

When President Bush cut taxes on those with the highest incomes, did the benefits trickle down as the Republicans promised? No. What resulted was a gigantic increase in our debt, well over $2 trillion in 8 years. I was the ranking member on the Budget Committee in those years. When we looked at tax cuts, we were told it would not interfere with our needs; rather, it was a way to get money to trickle down to the more modest income earners. Salaries rose as high as 400 times-- that was the ratio between the top person in the company and the bottom person in the company. Years ago, it ran about 40 times at its largest, but in recent years, it ran as high as 400 times larger for the CEO's pay than the average worker was paid. So 400 times--if the bottom wage earner was $40,000, the guy at the top got $16 million. So the disparity is something we have to look at.

People need to be able to afford the things that sustain life, and here we are looking at people earning over $1 million a year. We saw recently in the New York Times an article that showed eight wage earners who earned over $1 billion in a single year. One of

them earned $3.5 billion. We saw in the paper over the last couple of days that the family who holds the primary stock ownership in Walmart has a net worth of about $83 billion, and they, too, would get a tax break. Is that necessary? At the same time, middle-class families face surging gas prices, skyrocketing health care costs, and soaring college tuition. Now we are being asked to continue on the path that put us in the hole we are presently in.

As I look at where we are in this country and as I review my responsibilities to those in New Jersey whom I represent and what I want for those who will follow on, for my grandchildren, whom I love more deeply than anything else in life, I ask, What can I do that will improve their lives when I am no longer here? I conclude that a stronger democratic America will be the most valuable asset to leave behind--more valuable than more money, than more possessions, or any of those things--a stronger country, knowing they are getting their share of opportunity in this country of greatness, of wealth, underneath all of our problems. What I want to say to my grandchildren--the oldest is Alexander, and the youngest carries the name of Hudson. What do I want for them? I want them to be able to be safe, to be able to have health care when needed. I want them to be able to get an education. I want them to know their country appreciates what they do.

You can't build a building from the chimney on down, and you can't build a society from the wealthiest on down. If you don't have a good foundation, it all crumbles in front of you.

We are seeing worrisome signs about where America is going with some 15 million people unemployed at this time. What kind of a picture is that for people? And those who can't afford the necessities of life and who want unemployment insurance have to be in line to get some help. Yet we give the wealthiest more tax breaks. That is not the kind of society America really wants. We are giving to the wealthiest and forgetting the neediest.

So I wish to say that the vote for me was not easy, that there were some attractive parts in it, but the attractive parts were in there to try to get the bailout going, to try to get the tax breaks larger, to make sure they took care of their friends who are there with the money whenever called upon. It is a bad idea. That is not a democratic society.

So I am going to vote the same way tomorrow as I did yesterday; that is, against this bill. This is a bill that, in my view, will not make America stronger. Despite the fact that there is an economist or two proffering some optimistic assertions about where we will be, I don't believe it. I believe the people who say that the wealthiest will not spend the money to encourage the economy's growth, that those who get unemployment insurance will have to spend it and those who get more modest tax breaks will spend it to get the things they need for their families.

So I am going to try to make the reality for our country as good as it can be for everybody's grandchildren and for this great Nation of ours.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to take a couple of minutes to salute the service of one great Senator, Chris Dodd.

Chris and I have served together for more than 25 years. When I arrived here--and I was not one of the youngest people to get here at that time, but Chris was someone I knew from other walks of life--I turned to him, as well as my dear friend who used to occupy this seat, Ted Kennedy, for advice and counsel. Sometimes the counseling was better than the advice, but we were younger then.

Chris Dodd has that incredible personality that gets things done, that presents a leadership position on issues. He has shown incredible patience in the way he dealt with financial reform and with health care. But never, as I saw it, did Chris leave the people who disagreed with him with anger, with a feeling of anger or with anything other than respect and friendship.

Chris comes from a distinguished family. His father occupied a seat here for a dozen years. Now Senator Chris Dodd has decided to leave the Senate. It was a decision he made with which I totally disagreed. It was bad judgment, I can tell my colleagues that. When I left after 18 years of service, three terms, I decided I had had enough. I left. Good fortune smiled on me, and I came back after 2 years, after a 2-year absence, missing being here maybe more than it missed me.

I remember, as I made my outgoing visits--no, my decisionmaking visits--Chris invited me to his office with Ted Kennedy and a colleague whom we had at the time, Paul Wellstone, now deceased but a wonderful colleague. The three of them sat with me in Chris's office, and Chris tried to talk me out of leaving. I said: No, it is a decision I made. I began to have misgivings about it, but by then, the die was cast; there were other people who wanted to run for the job. So I left with lots of regrets. I was away from here for a period of time. In 2001 when I left, it was a terrible year--the year of 9/11 and the beginning of a recession and the beginning of war and all of those things. So I tried to play turnaround with Chris, and I talked to Chris about leaving and I said: Chris, don't leave. Don't do it.

Chris Dodd will leave a void. I think it is obvious that someone will follow, take the reins. It doesn't mean they will ever take his place. I don't think that is possible. Chris Dodd will have left an impression here of decency and honesty and honor and respect on all of us on both sides of the aisle--one of the few times we all agree.

So I say to Chris and Jackie and your two little girls that we wish you well. Our friendship will endure way past our time serving together.

Chris, follow my example. Give it a couple of years and get back here, will you. Thank you very, very much, Chris Dodd, for your wonderful service. We love you, and we will miss you, and we will always think about you.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 15 minutes to make my presentation. I thank Senator Inouye for enabling that.

I oppose the Coburn motion to place a 3-year moratorium on earmarks. I thank Chairman Inouye for his leadership on this issue. It seems, as has been said over the years, that we have heard this song before. If Members really believe these programs are responsible for our terrible fiscal condition, they are wrong. It is make believe. The deficit we are wrestling with had its biggest boost during the Bush years when 8 years of tax cuts for the wealthiest among us brought a $2 trillion increase in the national debt. But we never hear about that.

Earmarks are a vital investment for our communities. They help build levees, dams that protect coastal towns from flooding. Look at the water shortages across the country. A lot of these are helped by earmarks, by congressionally designated programs. We earmark funds for waste and drinking water problems, very serious problems. These are not frivolous ideas. They help police departments, first responders, hospital upgrades, and the purchase of new equipment. Look at transportation. It is falling apart. These earmarks, congressionally designated, build roads, bridges, and rail stations that strengthen our transportation infrastructure. One wouldn't know any of this by listening to the critics of designated funding from those sent here by our States to represent them with a special knowledge of their needs and requirements. These critics have dismissed earmarks as an example of wasteful, runaway government spending. We hear them called dirty programs, et cetera, mocking them.

To these critics I say: I would like you to see what happened in Jersey City, NJ, where an earmark enabled the Metropolitan Family Health Clinic to now screen women for breast cancer for the first time, thanks to new equipment funded by an earmark. Or tell it to the millions of people whose livelihoods are connected to the ports of New York and New Jersey. Earmarks permit us to deepen the harbor at our port so ever larger vessels can bring the cargo to our ports and help stimulate the economy. That means 230,000 jobs and is a critical component of our region's economy. Local communities rely upon this kind of funding in times like these when so many State and community budgets are stretched thin and revenues shrink and even philanthropy is drying up all over the country.

The fact is, hundreds of communities and nonprofit organizations across the country are expecting to receive congressionally earmarked funds for the unfinished fiscal 2011 appropriations bills. The Coburn amendment would pull the rug from underneath these communities, snatching away the Federal support they are counting on us to deliver.

One has only to see the reception of an organization such as Campus Kitchen, a nonprofit project that recently launched in Atlantic City to feed needy families who flock there over Thanksgiving and at the same time help unemployed workers upgrade their job skills. Campus Kitchen is counting on $100,000 worth of congressionally directed funds. If this amendment passes, they will close their doors, and those who need the food and can only get it there will go hungry.

What about the resources needed to protect our residents from terrorism. Hudson County sits just across the river from New York City, right in the heart of one of the most vulnerable areas in the country for terrorism.

This year's Homeland Security appropriations bill includes funding for an emergency operations center so that the county can prepare and respond to emergencies and potential terrorist threats. One of the most serious problems we saw on 9/11, when 3,000 people perished that day, was because the police departments could not talk to one another, because first responders could not talk to one another, because firemen could not talk to their leadership and died that day. Thousands more are now sick from the dust and the atmosphere that was created as a result of the demolition resulting from the attack. This amendment would eliminate funding for this vital program. Yet those who criticize these projects are the very same ones who were all too happy to provide earmarks when they were in charge.

I don't want to fool the public. Let them understand what is going on here. We are seeing raw politics at work. Earmarks make up just one- half of 1 percent of the Homeland Security bill for fiscal year 2011 that was passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee. I was proud to author that bill as the chairman of the subcommittee, building on the work begun by our recently departed Senator Byrd.

Compare this to the fiscal year 2006 bill which was written when our colleagues on the other side controlled the Congress. Under Republican control, earmarks in the Homeland Security appropriations bill were 60 percent higher than the fiscal year 2011 bill.

In addition to funding emergency operations centers, the Homeland Security bill funds important research that helps our Nation discover new ways to prevent potential terrorist attacks and respond when they happen. Earmarks also help to strengthen the Coast Guard whose mission and value continually increase. It is not wasteful spending. Over the years many people have recognized the value of these programs. Democrats and Republicans alike proudly included earmarks for worthwhile projects in their States. In fact, earmarks flourished when the Republicans controlled the Senate. In fiscal year 2006, total funding for earmarks was twice the amount included in last year's bills when Democrats were in charge, and it was Democrats who implemented the ethics reforms and earmark transparency that has significantly improved congressionally designated programs.

Since becoming Appropriations Committee chairman, Senator Inouye has been a great leader in this office. He has instituted important changes that have made the earmarking process stronger and more transparent. It was an essential factor in our review. At Chairman Inouye's request, Senators are now required to post their earmark requests on the Internet in advance so

the public can see them. He has brought this entire process further into the light of day, allowing constituents, the news media, and outside watchdog organizations to track how taxpayer dollars are spent.

But a funny thing has occurred. Some of our Republican friends who have used earmarks to serve their constituents for years suddenly have had a change of heart and jumped on the anti-earmark bandwagon. In fact, the Republican leader, who in the past brought home hundreds of millions of dollars to his State of Kentucky, has done an about-face in calling for an earmark ban.

The hypocrisy of these new earmark critics is outrageous. Here is what the critics never mention: Earmarks do not add one cent to the deficit, not a single cent. We heard that from our leader here, from Senator Inouye.

When Congress includes an earmark in an agency's budget, it is not increasing that budget. It is specifying how a portion of the funding should be spent based on their understanding of their State's needs. After hearing many requests all of us do, they can evaluate which ones they see as the most important. It is a voice of reason and understanding.

The fact is the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power of the purse when they wrote the Constitution. Directing funding to specific projects is one way Congress exercises this power.

If we eliminate earmarks, we will transfer our funding powers to the President, and that is not the way the Constitution is structured. It undermines the authority the Founders placed on us two centuries ago.

The people who work in the Federal agencies here in Washington include some of America's best and brightest, but they simply do not necessarily know the needs of our States as well as we do. This debate over earmarks is nothing more than a distraction from the pressing issues on which we should be focused.

I call on my colleagues to consider the facts and not the rhetoric. Do not be misled. Do not allow the truth to be mangled, misconstrued, and misrepresented. Earmarks help create jobs and help millions of Americans through their lives, especially now in this stressful period where we have people who are afraid they are going to lose their jobs after many years of loyal support or, still, lose their homes because they cannot afford the mortgages they were sold.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coburn amendment because it will not solve a single problem we face. I hope we will use our time for more constructive debate. I would suggest that everybody who talks in opposition to earmarks, congressionally designated programs, say now on this floor--take an oath that you will in your own State announce the fact you are opposing the earmarks that were proposed for it. Tell the people back home that you are going to deny their right to accept these things because it is dirty, because it is unclean, and they say that it goes only to those who contribute large sums of money.

If you want to look at those who contribute large sums of money, look at that side of the aisle. They dwarf what we do in our debate about where funding goes and where funding stops.

With that, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 676, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 679.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I understand that S. 3985 introduced earlier by Senator Sanders is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. on Tuesday, November 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of Proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, as provided for under the previous order; that upon disposition of S. 510, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 until 4 p.m. to allow for the party caucus meetings; and finally, I ask that Senator Dodd be recognized to speak at 4 p.m.

Mr. President, Senators should expect a series of up to three rollcall votes beginning at approximately 9:15 tomorrow. The votes will be in relation to two Coburn motions to suspend the rules and on the passage of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of SSG Ingles DosReis, who was tragically killed on August 28, 2009, while serving at Aviano Air Base in Italy.

Staff Sergeant DosReis enlisted in the Air Force in February 2005, immediately following his graduation from high school. He was a member of the 51st Security Forces Squadron stationed out of Osan Air Base in South Korea from August 2005 until August 2006. He was subsequently transferred to the 31st Security Forces Squadron at Aviano Air Base, where he started as an installation entry controller. He deployed to Iraq in August 2007 and received the Army Achievement Medal for his service. Staff Sergeant DosReis served in Iraq until February 2008 and upon his return he became a certified desk sergeant at Aviano Air Base. He was posthumously promoted by the Air Force to the permanent grade of staff sergeant in August 2009.

Staff Sergeant DosReis' family fondly remembers him as an intelligent and kindhearted man and a loving husband to his wife Katherine and father to his son Christian. A great athlete, Staff Sergeant DosReis spent much of his childhood playing basketball and had a passion for sports. He was also a natural student, earning honors in high school and later going on to take classes at the Community College of the Air Force with a major in political science.

Over a year has passed since SSG Ingles DosReis was tragically taken from those who love him. Today, I join Staff Sergeant DosReis' family and friends in commemorating his life by entering his name in the Record. As a member of the Air Force, he showed his loyalty and commitment to freedom and peace and today we honor his service and sacrifice for our country.

Lance Corporal Irvin M. Ceniceros

Mr. President, I have been in the Senate a long time. This is my 25th year of service. This is one of the most exciting moments I have seen here. Today we have an opportunity to fulfill a great responsibility and an honor, to be able to stand in this Chamber to declare our support for the President's selection of an outstanding nominee: Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Everyone is aware that she brings an intellect, experience, and knowledge of the law that places her among the few in this country so perfectly qualified to serve on this most important body of jurisprudence in the entire world.

Upon the entrance to the Federal courthouse in Newark, NJ, there is an inscription that reads: ``The true measure of a democracy is its dispensation of justice.'' I was the author of that statement and I labored over it, short as it is, to reflect my view that reflects a fundamental principle of our democracy and the values on which the U.S. Constitution was founded. These values pervade throughout our government and legal system, and especially in the decisions of our Nation's highest Court.

I met with Solicitor General Kagan to hear her views and her personal history, and I watched the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have no doubt that, if approved, Solicitor General Kagan will be an outstanding defender of our Constitution in the dispensation of justice entrusted to a Supreme Court member. That is why I hope that with this historic opportunity, the Senate will stand up for what is right, to confirm Ms. Kagan's appointment to become a member of the highest Court in our country because of her outstanding qualifications.

When I met with her, I told her the people of New Jersey were excited about her nomination not only because of her outstanding educational achievements--by the way, graduating from Princeton, NJ, summa cum laude, and contributing so much in her life through her commitment to public service. The excitement is generated because Ms. Kagan is a trailblazer who has paved the way to the top of the legal profession that has helped open doors to women as well as men. She was the first woman chosen to be dean of Harvard Law School. She is the first woman ever to have served as Solicitor General of the United States, a post many call the ``tenth Justice'' of the Supreme Court. We must remember what that job is, what that task is, and that is to appear on behalf of the United States as an advocate, having tested abilities to bring the case to the Court, defending our country, and experience second to none in that courtroom.

Let us not forget that in the last year she has amassed an impressive record as Solicitor General. She has filed more than 3,500 pages of merit briefs before the Court, and she has argued cases on a broad range of issues from protecting children from pedophiles to protecting Americans from terrorists. If she is confirmed, of nine members of the Court, the proportion of women will be at its highest level in history, with women holding three seats.

She is the granddaughter of immigrants, and that experience shaped the world in which she grew up. Similarly, I came from parents brought to America by my grandparents, who had the common experience of so many of the struggle to learn a new language, adopt new skills to get by, mustering the determination to help their children rise above their circumstances in this new world. Though my parents worked very hard, they were never able to accumulate valuables. Instead, the heritage they left my sister and me was a set of values and a love for America with its freedom and opportunities and appreciation for what this country gives us all. They often reminded us that there were those far worse off than we and we had an obligation to contribute if we could to give something back to our community.

These same values are inherent in Ms. Kagan's views as she expressed them to me. Her father was a housing lawyer. Her mother was a public schoolteacher for 20 years, and she carries the heritage of their public service dedication. Solicitor General Kagan's career has confirmed her own commitment to public service, protecting rights and individual freedoms.

She served as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall whom she, as many other Americans, greatly admired. Frankly, it is sad to see that some on this floor during her confirmation hearings attempted to discredit Solicitor General Kagan's reputation because of her association with Justice Thurgood Marshall. Justice Marshall was an icon who expanded respect and tolerance in America as few others have in our history. He argued Brown v. The Board of Education. He was the first African American to serve as Solicitor General of the United States, at which he excelled, amassing a remarkable record of Court victories. He was the first African-American Supreme Court Justice and distinguished himself as one of America's greatest jurists.

Some on the other side, in order to keep this appointment from being confirmed, have gone so far in their desperation to denigrate Ms. Kagan that they have labeled Justice Marshall as some radical on the bench and attempted to tear apart the years of brilliant contributions of this great man.

I want to be clear. The fight to end racial discrimination may have been radical to some, but it was the right fight and the right cause, and there will never be anything shameful about a person whose great mind and ferocious eloquence made him a giant in the civil rights movement. Shame on those who would denigrate those achievements.

Ms. Kagan's lifelong dedication has been to break down barriers and work for what is right, not simply popular. At Harvard Law School, one of her accomplishments as dean was to welcome different views among faculty members. She believed--and exercised that belief--that her students would not get the legal education they deserved if it was limited by one ideological perspective. She made it a point to add faculty members who came from different points along the political spectrum. No wonder Solicitor General Kagan's nomination has not only been endorsed by liberals but also by conservatives, including Ken Starr, Ted Olson, and Miguel Estrada.

Considering a Supreme Court nominee is one of the most important responsibilities we have. The Supreme Court makes decisions that determine the very underpinnings of our country's character. It has a direct say on the rights--or lack thereof--our children and grandchildren will have. The Court can decide whether big corporations and the rich and famous should have a stronger claim to justice than the average person. The Court sets the table for government power-- whether it goes unchecked or is responsible to the people. The rulings of the Court affect everyday New Jerseyans and everyday Americans. There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Kagan understands that.

After careful consideration, I am going to proudly vote yes to confirm a person who I believe will be one of the great Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Mr. President, I hope there isn't this continuing attempt and process we have seen here where it is the objective of individuals in this room--typically on the other side of the aisle--to stop things from happening, to be obstructionists. There is no point in exercising that kind of foolishness. This is a time to step up and say we want the best we can get for our Supreme Court. President Obama has chosen carefully and wisely, and we want to see Ms. Kagan seated on the Supreme Court. I hope my colleagues will vote affirmatively to make sure that happens.

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

Mr. President, another 8 months have passed, and more American troops have lost their lives overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish to honor their service and sacrifice by including their names in the Congressional Record.

Since I last included the names of our fallen troops on November 2, 2009, the Pentagon has announced the deaths of 313 troops in Iraq and in Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Afghanistan. They will not be forgotten, and today I submit their names into the Record:

SSG Jesse W. Ainsworth, of Dayton, TX; SGT Donald R.

Edgerton, of Murphy, NC; SPC Joseph W. Dimock II, of

Wildwood, IL; SPC Robert W. Crow, of Kansas City, MO; PFC

Anthony W. Simmons, of Tallahassee, FL; PFC Michael S.

Pridham, of Louisville, KY; SPC Roger Lee, of Monterey, CA;

SSG Marc A. Arizmendez, of Anaheim, CA; SPC Jerod H. Osborne,

of Royse City, TX; SPC Keenan A. Cooper, of Wahpeton, ND; PFC

Jacob A. Dennis, of Powder Springs, GA; SGT Andrew J.

Creighton, of Laurel, DE; SSG Christopher F. Cabacoy, of

Virginia Beach, VA; PFC Edwin C. Wood, of Omaha, NE; SGT

Jordan E. Tuttle, of West Monroe, LA; PFC David Jefferson, of

Philadelphia, PA; SPC Clayton D. McGarrah, of Harrison, AR;

SPC Louis R. Fastuca, of West Chester, PA; Capt. David A.

Wisniewski, of Moville, IA; PFC Ryan J. Grady, of Bristow,

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

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

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

Mr. President, this is not my regular seat in the Senate, but I came here to stand near the place that Senator Robert C. Byrd occupied. His absence is noted by the flowers and the black cloth that covers his desk.

There is so much to say about Robert C. Byrd that to have a serious discussion about who and what he was would take far more time than we have available. He was an unusual man, brilliant, genius, credited with encyclopedic knowledge.

When I came to the Senate in 1983, I was not a young man. I am now an older man. When I came, I wanted to meet Senator Byrd. I came from the business world. I was chairman and CEO of a significant corporation that carried substantial esteem and respect for the record compiled by the three of us boys from poor working-class families in Paterson, NJ, an industrial city that had its origins as an industrial place at the time of Alexander Hamilton.

I was privileged to meet a lot of people who could be described as lofty and holding positions of importance. When I went in to Senator Byrd's office to introduce myself--I had met him a couple of times before I was elected to the Senate seat from New Jersey--it was with great awe and respect that I sat in front of this individual who had given so much to our country, who taxed our wits and made us think more deeply about our responsibilities than sometimes we have. He was a tower of knowledge and strength.

I introduced myself to him, and we had a nice chat for a while. He asked me about my background. I talked about my life and my experiences, which are not anything like the depth of Senator Robert Byrd's background. I came from a poor family. I served in the Army. I received my education at Columbia University because I was able to use the scholarship that was given to soldiers who had served in the military.

As I listened to Robert Byrd, what he had accomplished in his lifetime

dwarfed anything I had ever seen. He was a man born into poverty, orphaned at an early stage in life, and turned over to relatives to be brought up. He taught himself how to play the violin and attended law school part time at night for years, finally getting his law degree from the university. He was an incredible figure in our time.

We feel his absence already. In his latest years, he was not fortunate enough to have the kind of health he had as a younger man, but he always had the respect of everybody who knew him.

When we look at his history, if one has time to go to the computer and get a biography that is held in Wikipedia and see the more than 30 pages' worth of his accomplishments and history, it was a privilege and an honor for those of us who knew him when we look at the positions he held. He had elegance. He had grace. He had resilience. He was tough. He had a meticulous grasp of history.

I came out of the computer business. I used to tease Robert C. Byrd. I called him ``my human computer.'' He had so much knowledge that, frankly, I think it competed very ably with the computers in the early eighties when I came to the Senate.

When I visited him in his office, he asked me if I knew the history of the monarchs of the British Empire. I said I did not know much about them. I knew the recent one, the sitting monarch at the time. He proceeded for more than one hour to give me the history of the monarchs of the British Empire, starting with William the Conqueror, 1066, and recalling everybody who was King or Queen of England, of the British Empire. He talked about how long they served, the precise dates they served, whether they died by the hand of an assassin, whether they died from a disease, whether they died from an accident. He knew all of that detail. I was sitting in total bewilderment as to how one could capture and remember so much of that information.

When I asked to be excused because I had some other business, he was ready to give me the history of the Roman Senate. He did this not like most of us, with notes. He had it in his brain while he recalled everything he learned and did, the number of votes, where he cast them, and on what issue. It was remarkable.

He served at a period of time when we had some of the most remarkable people this body has seen. Not to suggest we do not have talent equal to the stature of some of those who served then. It is worthy of mention that he was the majority leader in the Senate from January 1977 to January 1981 and again from 1989 to 1989, a relatively short period. He preceded and served with people such as Howard Baker on the Republican side, Bob Dole, Mike Mansfield, and George Mitchell. He was an equal with those powerhouses and stood as one of them. He stood out.

He revered this Senate and the process with which we then operated. We are far less committed to process. Bob Byrd insisted we have the time, respect, courtesy, and proper addressing of individuals, giving it a certain loftiness that we otherwise would not have had.

Nobody knew more about this body than Robert C. Byrd. He was this Chamber's protector. He protected the Senate's rules, the Senate's integrity, and he protected the Senate's civility. He taught each and every one of us how the Senate works--the ins, the outs. It is hard to imagine serving a single day without him. He had such respect for the management of this country of ours.

We should be inspired by Robert C. Byrd's legacy to become more cooperative and more civil in the days ahead. We ought to reflect on those values tomorrow as we view Senator Byrd's casket lying in repose in this Chamber that he loved so dearly. He loved it so much that he reminded all of us from time to time--he would pick up on a phrase. Someone talked about serving under President this or that President. He said: Sir, never, never under. We serve with the President of the United States. We never serve under them. We are a body of equal importance. And he knew that from every possible position of responsibility he held.

What we should do as a Senate is accept the best that Robert C. Byrd brought to us, to share the image he brought to all of us and to the stature of this body.

Robert C. Byrd's journey in life was simply remarkable. He was born into deep poverty, growing up without the comforts that many of us take for granted, such as running water, and setting an example for all Americans of what you might be if you make the effort and you have the dedication to a higher purpose.

Although he was high school valedictorian at the age of 16, he had to skip college because he did not have the means to pay for it. He overcame that obstacle by becoming a self-taught man and a student of history. How did he learn to play the violin all by himself, and learn what he did about education and law?

He served half a century--51 years--in the Senate, holding every critical position, including, as I mentioned, majority leader and minority leader and President pro tempore. In that position he was third in line for the Presidency of the United States.

Still, he never forgot where he came from and his duty to help everyday people. He pleaded their case, particularly his beloved West Virginia, as well as across the country.

I had the privilege to serve with Senator Byrd when he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Some like to make light of his position to fund projects in West Virginia, but there was nothing cynical about his life's cause to stamp out poverty in his home State and in this country. Senator Byrd called bringing Federal dollars back to his State one of his greatest achievements. He understood that a new school meant a child would have a better chance for a future. A new sewage system meant that families might have clean water--unaccustomed as they were in lots of places in his home State. A new highway meant that farmers and companies could bring their product and their produce to market in hours.

I will use the expression that he ``elegantized'' the beauty of the deeds of working people and brought meaning to the purpose of their lives and their work.

He was a forward-looking man. He, working with all of us, recognized the importance of an appropriate infrastructure--the importance of Amtrak, of the railroad that serves so many millions of Americans every year. He was a voice for stronger rail service, knowing that could get people more reliable travel so they would not be stuck in massive traffic jams when they had to get someplace. It was an important part of an agenda that he had that was so broad.

Years ago, when Amtrak--a favorite part of my view of what has to happen with our infrastructure--was under siege, we worked side by side to protect America's premier rail network from being defunded. In 2007, when the Amtrak law I authored was on this floor, we faced a difficult vote to defeat a killer amendment. I remember standing here as they were counting the yeas and nays, and Senator Byrd had occasion to let his simple yes or no ring out across this place. He put a stamp on that, and that meant that he didn't like it or he did like it.

He wanted everybody in this place to remember that he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He remembered when people voted with him and when they didn't. He couldn't stand the hypocrisy of people who would say: Oh, these earmarks are terrible, and then they would put in their list. But he would remember it. It was not a good thing, to meet with Robert C. Byrd's disapproval, when you wanted something; especially after so hypocritically voting against something and then wanting that very thing for your own State.

We have an obligation to honor the legacy of this giant of an individual, this giant of a Senator, this giant of a public servant, and that means never losing sight of the millions of Americans out there who don't know whether they will have a home now or have a job, or whether they will be able to afford electricity or food or a roof to sleep under, or a way to take care of their children. But he reminded us on a constant basis what our commitment was.

It also means, I think in reflection, that we should be renewing our commitment, as hard as it is--and it is easy to kind of pontificate here--to working together. But let us look at what is happening. Let us look at what

has been happening now. I don't think this is an appropriate time to voice lots of criticism, but when we see how difficult it is to move positive things through this institution, it is hard to understand, because the fundamentals that Robert C. Byrd brought to his work were that we were here to serve the public. That was the mission.

Rather than standing in the way of permitting things to be considered--things of value--perhaps we ought to have a Byrd lecture to the Senate-at-large every now and then and let someone who knew him or studied him talk about what he brought to the Senate, in addition to extraordinary leadership; someone who could talk about the degree of collegiality that is necessary for us to consider things--serious things--and to get them done.

Senator Byrd recently said--and he said this on a regular basis:

The world has changed. But our responsibilities, our duties

as Senators have not changed. We have a responsibility, a

duty to the people to make our country a better place.

It would be fitting if in the shadow of his passing that we could take a sledgehammer to partisan gridlock, put the unnecessary rancor aside and start functioning in a deliberative fashion once again.

I thank you, Senator Robert C. Byrd, for what you gave to us and gave to this country. All of it will not be recognized in these moments. But as history is reviewed, people will remember--I hope they do--that even when he made a mistake, a serious mistake in his early days--when he was not eager to support desegregation; that he should not have abided with segregationists; that this country belonged to all the people and no one should be discriminated against--that one can be forgiven with good deeds after some bad ones. And he redeemed himself so nobly, so wonderfully.

So we say, as we have been for these days, thank you, Robert C Byrd. We loved being with you, and we will miss you.

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