Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, April 26, 2012, at 11:30 a.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 509 and 510; that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; and that any related statements be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

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

Mr. President, on July 1, approximately 7.4 million college students will see the interest rate double on their student loans unless Congress takes action. For every year we fail to act, borrowers will pay $1,000 more in interest on their loans. In January, I introduced S. 2051, the Student Loan Affordability Act, to maintain the subsidized student loan interest rate at the current 3.4 percent. Today, I am proud to join my colleagues Senator Brown of Ohio and Senator Harkin, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, in sponsoring the Stop Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act. This legislation is a fully paid for, 1-year extension of the 3.4-percent interest rate for subsidized student loans.

There is bipartisan support for keeping interest rates low. Governor Romney has endorsed a temporary extension of the current 3.4 percent rate. Two-thirds of Republican Senators voted to cut the interest rate to 3.4 percent under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007.

The Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act will maintain the interest rate at 3.4 percent for another year. The 1-year extension is fully paid for by eliminating a tax loophole that has allowed some shareholder-employees of so-called S corporations to avoid paying their fair share of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. This offset will apply only to a subset of S corporations that are professional service businesses--those that derive 75 percent of their gross income from the services of three or fewer shareholders or where the S corporation is a partner in a partnership whose primary activity is professional services. Additionally, the offset only impacts filers with income over $250,000, filing jointly, or $200,000, single filer.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, GAO, found that in the 2003 and 2004 tax years, individuals used S corporations to underreport over $23 billion in wage income. The median misreported amount was $20,127.

Closing this loophole will fully offset the $6 billion cost of a 1- year extension of the interest rate and would make the Tax Code more fair. It is a win-win proposition.

Some may say that the Federal Government cannot afford to forgo the higher interest payments because of the budget deficit. However, this legislation is fully paid for and should garner support from both sides of the aisle.

It is a matter of priorities. We need to put the interests of middle- class Americans ahead of those who would avoid paying their fair share in taxes.

Student loan debt affects millions of Americans. Two-thirds of the class of 2010 graduated owing student loans, with an average debt of over $25,000. Student loan debt has passed the $1 trillion mark-- exceeding credit card debt. Moreover, the students and families we are trying to help with the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike have demonstrated economic need. Indeed, nearly 60 percent of the dependent students who qualify for subsidized loans come from families with incomes of less than $60,000.

The question before us is, Will we make the student loan debt burden worse by allowing interest rates to double or will we take action to protect low and moderate income students?

We need to act fast. July 1 is only 66 days away. I urge all my colleagues to join with Senator Sherrod Brown, Chairman Harkin, and me in supporting the Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 437, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, 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 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 438, which was submitted earlier today by Senator Lautenberg.

Mr. President, I further ask 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 that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 2366, introduced earlier today by Senator Alexander, be considered read twice and placed on the calendar.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until Thursday, April 26, at 9:30 a.m.; that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate resume consideration of S. 1925, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, under the previous order; that after the remarks of the two leaders, the time until 11:30 a.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans controlling the first 45 minutes and the majority controlling the second 45 minutes; and that at 11:30 a.m. the Senate proceed to executive session under the previous order; further, that when the Senate resumes legislative session, the majority leader will be recognized.

Mr. President, there will be two votes tomorrow at noon on confirmation of the Costa and Guaderrama nominations.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Isakson in introducing the Tanning Transparency and Notification Act, or the TAN Act.

This legislation is a continuation of an initiative that we worked on together five years ago during the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, FDAAA, of 2007. That initiative required the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to issue a report to Congress on whether the labeling requirements for indoor tanning devices provide sufficient information to consumers regarding the risks that the use of such devices pose for the development of irreversible damage to the eyes and skin, including skin cancer.

We called for this report in 2007 because the FDA had not updated its warnings on tanning beds since 1979. The FDA still has not acted and we believe that users of indoor tanning beds deserve to be fully informed. While the American Academy of Dermatology, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization, WHO, continue to discourage the use of indoor tanning beds, this message and up-to-date information about the risks of indoor tanning are still not being adequately provided to consumers.

Not surprisingly, the FDA found in its report to Congress that updating current labeling requirements for tanning beds would better protect consumers from irreversible skin damage. This is an excerpt from the FDA's own report:

Based on its analysis of the results of the consumer study

required by section 230 of FDAAA, FDA has determined that

there are warnings that are capable of adequately

communicating the risks of indoor tanning,

and that a modified warning statement label may more

effectively convey these risks than the current labeling

requirements. FDA has also determined that changes to the

positioning requirements for the warning statement label may

communicate such risks more effectively.

Unfortunately, the FDA has not heeded its own advice. Tanning bed labels remain unchanged and skin cancer rates continue to rise. This year, approximately 131,810 new cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the United States, and nearly 9,180 people will die from melanoma. Some of these cases result from the use of tanning beds.

Two million Americans, approximately 70 percent of whom are girls and women, visit a tanning salon each day. The WHO reports that the risk of cutaneous melanoma increases by 75 percent when use of tanning devices starts before 30 years of age.

Better informing these individuals about the incidence of melanoma, and increasing transparency and improving notification about the risks of indoor tanning are all ways to reduce skin cancer rates. The Tanning Transparency and Notification Act would require the FDA to carry out the recommendations in its report and update the labeling requirements for tanning beds.

Initiatives like this can make a difference in the health of Americans. Indeed, just last year, the FDA finalized critical regulations--at my and others' urging--that were 30 years in the making regarding sunscreen labeling. Providing consumers with critical information about the risks of indoor and outdoor tanning can help better protect them against skin cancer. I look forward to working with my colleagues on improving the labeling of indoor tanning beds and continuing efforts to combat skin cancer.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Isakson in introducing the Tanning Transparency and Notification Act, or the TAN Act.

This legislation is a continuation of an initiative that we worked on together five years ago during the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, FDAAA, of 2007. That initiative required the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to issue a report to Congress on whether the labeling requirements for indoor tanning devices provide sufficient information to consumers regarding the risks that the use of such devices pose for the development of irreversible damage to the eyes and skin, including skin cancer.

We called for this report in 2007 because the FDA had not updated its warnings on tanning beds since 1979. The FDA still has not acted and we believe that users of indoor tanning beds deserve to be fully informed. While the American Academy of Dermatology, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization, WHO, continue to discourage the use of indoor tanning beds, this message and up-to-date information about the risks of indoor tanning are still not being adequately provided to consumers.

Not surprisingly, the FDA found in its report to Congress that updating current labeling requirements for tanning beds would better protect consumers from irreversible skin damage. This is an excerpt from the FDA's own report:

Based on its analysis of the results of the consumer study

required by section 230 of FDAAA, FDA has determined that

there are warnings that are capable of adequately

communicating the risks of indoor tanning,

and that a modified warning statement label may more

effectively convey these risks than the current labeling

requirements. FDA has also determined that changes to the

positioning requirements for the warning statement label may

communicate such risks more effectively.

Unfortunately, the FDA has not heeded its own advice. Tanning bed labels remain unchanged and skin cancer rates continue to rise. This year, approximately 131,810 new cases of melanoma will be diagnosed in the United States, and nearly 9,180 people will die from melanoma. Some of these cases result from the use of tanning beds.

Two million Americans, approximately 70 percent of whom are girls and women, visit a tanning salon each day. The WHO reports that the risk of cutaneous melanoma increases by 75 percent when use of tanning devices starts before 30 years of age.

Better informing these individuals about the incidence of melanoma, and increasing transparency and improving notification about the risks of indoor tanning are all ways to reduce skin cancer rates. The Tanning Transparency and Notification Act would require the FDA to carry out the recommendations in its report and update the labeling requirements for tanning beds.

Initiatives like this can make a difference in the health of Americans. Indeed, just last year, the FDA finalized critical regulations--at my and others' urging--that were 30 years in the making regarding sunscreen labeling. Providing consumers with critical information about the risks of indoor and outdoor tanning can help better protect them against skin cancer. I look forward to working with my colleagues on improving the labeling of indoor tanning beds and continuing efforts to combat skin cancer.

Mr. President, we are engaged in a very important debate while the clock is ticking on literally the future of the postal service.

I want to alert my colleagues to another issue that is rapidly approaching. On July 1, if we do not act, the interest rate on subsidized student loans will be doubling from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, impacting more than 7 million students, including more than 36,000 in Rhode Island.

I have introduced legislation--the Student Loan Affordability Act--to stop the doubling of student loan interest rates as of July 1 of this year. Many of my colleagues have already joined me, including Senators Begich, Sherrod Brown, Durbin, Franken, Tim Johnson, Klobuchar, Leahy, Murray, Sanders, Schumer, Stabenow, Whitehouse, and Wyden, as cosponsors of the legislation. I thank them and urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

If we don't act, the average borrower will have to pay approximately $2,800 more in interest on their loans. Students who take out the maximum $23,000 in subsidized student loans could owe approximately $5,000 more over the 10-year repayment period. Students and families simply cannot absorb these costs in this tough economy and in the face of rising tuition and dwindling State support for higher education.

This particular measure will hit middle-income families very hard because they are the ones who rely significantly on these subsidized student loans. The subsidized student loan program is a need-based financial aid program. To get the low rate and the in-school interest subsidy, students must demonstrate economic need. Nearly 60 percent of the dependent students who qualify for these loans come from families with incomes of less than $60,000. That is literally the middle class and the working poor of this country.

This is an issue of fairness. At a time, ironically, of historically low interest rates, when the Federal Reserve has set the target interest rate for Federal funds between 0 and .25 percent--the Fed is lending money to banks at near zero percent. We, at the same time, are asking middle-income families to pay twice as much, 6.8 percent--a huge discrepancy--in the loans they pay for education.

We also recognize--all of us--that the key to our future is an educated America. It seems that given the interest rate environment, where banks can get money overnight at near zero percent interest and we are telling students they have to pay 6.8, not 3.4, it doesn't make sense. It is in our national interest to ensure that students not only get educated but don't leave school with a mountain of debt.

We need more students graduating from our colleges, universities, and professional schools because that will power our economy in the future. We won't be globally competitive if we don't do this.

In 1980 the gap between the lifetime earnings of a college graduate and high school graduate was 40 percent. In 2010 it was 74 percent. By 2025 it is projected to be 96 percent. The message is clear: If you cannot get postsecondary education, you are virtually going to be condemned to being far behind in terms of income and ability to support your family. Researchers have found that since at least the 1980s, we haven't been producing a sufficient number of college-educated workers to meet the demand of industry. If you go to businesses throughout Rhode Island and the Nation, they will tell you they have jobs for which they cannot find the people with the high-level skills needed to fill them. So every available criterion argues strenuously for this legislation.

In Rhode Island, we have 41 percent of our working adults who have college degrees. By 2018 it is estimated that 61 percent of the jobs there will require some postsecondary education. We have a 20-percent gap that has already opened in the next 4 years, and we have to fill it. The wrong way to fill it is to make college more expensive.

I recently had a roundtable with all of the presidents of my universities and colleges in Rhode Island. They said that keeping this interest rate relatively low is absolutely critical. They are all worried about the fact that by July 1, unless we act, we will see a doubling of this interest rate.

Frankly, this is an issue that has had bipartisan support. In 2007, on a very strong, bipartisan basis, we enacted the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, cutting the interest rate from 6.8 to 3.4 percent. In the Senate, the legislation passed on a 79-to-12 vote, with more than two-thirds of Republican Senators--34 out of 49--supporting it. President George W. Bush signed it into law.

We have to revive, before July 1, that bipartisan spirit that motivated the initial legislation so that we can avoid doubling the interest rate college students will pay for these loans. It is a matter of major priorities for us--not just for a short time but for the future of the country. We have 75 days. The clock is ticking. We have to move. If we don't, millions of middle-class students and families will be denied the opportunity to effectively get a higher education.

I yield the floor.

I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Alexander, Murray, and Roberts in introducing the Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act, BPDCA. This legislation will ensure that children are prioritized in the drug development process, as well as continue the increase in the number and quality of medical devices developed for use in children. I am particularly pleased that this bill has the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Indeed, drugs and devices work differently in children than in adults, and consequently, must be studied specifically for use in children. However, due to the fact that pediatric trials can be costly, take several years, and offer less of a return on investment, drug companies weren't initiating these trials. As a result, nearly 80 percent of drugs were used off-label in children.

This alarming statistic garnered the attention of pediatricians, medical experts, families, and ultimately, Congress. In 1997, Congress provided pharmaceutical companies with an incentive to invest in pediatric research through the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA. In 2003, Congress passed the Pediatric Research Equity Act to begin requiring pharmaceutical companies to engage in these studies. Since the enactment of these laws, 426 drug labels have been revised with important pediatric information and there has been a decline in the number of drugs used off-label in children from 80 to 50 percent.

However, these laws will expire on October 1 unless Congress passes legislation to renew them. The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act would ensure that these laws are never at risk of expiring again. Laws that examine the safety and effectiveness of drugs and devices in adults are permanent. Children should have the same assurances. By making these laws permanent, pharmaceutical companies will also gain the certainty they need to continue wisely investing in these studies.

In making these laws permanent, we must not miss an opportunity to improve their benefits for children to ensure that more robust and timely information about the use of drugs and devices can guide clinical care. This legislation does just that.

First, it would ensure pediatric studies are planned earlier in the drug development process. Currently, pediatric study plans can be submitted to the FDA when a company submits its new drug application. This can be a very stressful time for a company and, as such, pediatric study plans are often left to the last minute. This has traditionally resulted in insufficient and inappropriate study plans, as well as delays of important pediatric data. Our legislation would require companies to submit a more robust pediatric study plan at the end of phase two in the drug development process. By this time in the process, a company already has performed the requisite clinical trial or trials in adults and has a better understanding of a drug's safety and efficacy, as well as dosing requirements. Moreover, experts at the FDA initially tried to require companies to submit a pediatric study plan at this time in the drug development process in a regulation that was struck down by the courts. However, the rationale and justification behind the regulation helped inform the drafting of this legislation and led us to believe that companies should submit their initial pediatric study plan to the FDA at the end of phase two.

The legislation would also ensure that pediatric studies are actually completed. An alarming 78 percent of pediatric studies that were scheduled to be completed by September 2007 are currently late or were submitted late. While it is appropriate for some studies to take longer than expected and we wouldn't want a pediatric study to hold up the approval of a drug for use in adults it is unacceptable for companies to fail to complete pediatric studies altogether. Our bill would give the FDA the authority to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable delays in pediatric studies and provide the agency with critical enforcement tools to ensure required pediatric studies are completed. This legislation would also provide the FDA with the ability to better track the progress of studies and assist with any complications.

The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act also responds to the need for the development of pediatric medical devices in children, which can lag five to ten years behind those manufactured for adults. The pediatric profit allowance for Humanitarian Use Devices has proven to be an effective incentive for the development of new medical devices that are designed specifically for the needs of children. Our bill would continue this important policy. It would also reauthorize the Pediatric Device Consortia, which in just two and a half years, has assisted in advancing the development of 135 proposed pediatric medical devices and helped get life-saving and life-improving pediatric devices to the patients that need them.

This legislation is critical for children's health. It will help give parents peace of mind that when their doctor prescribes a medication or recommends a medical device for their kids, it is proven safe and effective for specific use in children.

It is my understanding that Chairman Harkin will be including this legislation as part of a broader initiative that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will soon be considering focused on improving drugs and devices. I look forward to working with Senators Alexander, Murray, and Roberts, as well as the Chairman and others on moving this bill forward before the October deadline.

I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Alexander, Murray, and Roberts in introducing the Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act, BPDCA. This legislation will ensure that children are prioritized in the drug development process, as well as continue the increase in the number and quality of medical devices developed for use in children. I am particularly pleased that this bill has the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Indeed, drugs and devices work differently in children than in adults, and consequently, must be studied specifically for use in children. However, due to the fact that pediatric trials can be costly, take several years, and offer less of a return on investment, drug companies weren't initiating these trials. As a result, nearly 80 percent of drugs were used off-label in children.

This alarming statistic garnered the attention of pediatricians, medical experts, families, and ultimately, Congress. In 1997, Congress provided pharmaceutical companies with an incentive to invest in pediatric research through the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, BPCA. In 2003, Congress passed the Pediatric Research Equity Act to begin requiring pharmaceutical companies to engage in these studies. Since the enactment of these laws, 426 drug labels have been revised with important pediatric information and there has been a decline in the number of drugs used off-label in children from 80 to 50 percent.

However, these laws will expire on October 1 unless Congress passes legislation to renew them. The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act would ensure that these laws are never at risk of expiring again. Laws that examine the safety and effectiveness of drugs and devices in adults are permanent. Children should have the same assurances. By making these laws permanent, pharmaceutical companies will also gain the certainty they need to continue wisely investing in these studies.

In making these laws permanent, we must not miss an opportunity to improve their benefits for children to ensure that more robust and timely information about the use of drugs and devices can guide clinical care. This legislation does just that.

First, it would ensure pediatric studies are planned earlier in the drug development process. Currently, pediatric study plans can be submitted to the FDA when a company submits its new drug application. This can be a very stressful time for a company and, as such, pediatric study plans are often left to the last minute. This has traditionally resulted in insufficient and inappropriate study plans, as well as delays of important pediatric data. Our legislation would require companies to submit a more robust pediatric study plan at the end of phase two in the drug development process. By this time in the process, a company already has performed the requisite clinical trial or trials in adults and has a better understanding of a drug's safety and efficacy, as well as dosing requirements. Moreover, experts at the FDA initially tried to require companies to submit a pediatric study plan at this time in the drug development process in a regulation that was struck down by the courts. However, the rationale and justification behind the regulation helped inform the drafting of this legislation and led us to believe that companies should submit their initial pediatric study plan to the FDA at the end of phase two.

The legislation would also ensure that pediatric studies are actually completed. An alarming 78 percent of pediatric studies that were scheduled to be completed by September 2007 are currently late or were submitted late. While it is appropriate for some studies to take longer than expected and we wouldn't want a pediatric study to hold up the approval of a drug for use in adults it is unacceptable for companies to fail to complete pediatric studies altogether. Our bill would give the FDA the authority to distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable delays in pediatric studies and provide the agency with critical enforcement tools to ensure required pediatric studies are completed. This legislation would also provide the FDA with the ability to better track the progress of studies and assist with any complications.

The Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act also responds to the need for the development of pediatric medical devices in children, which can lag five to ten years behind those manufactured for adults. The pediatric profit allowance for Humanitarian Use Devices has proven to be an effective incentive for the development of new medical devices that are designed specifically for the needs of children. Our bill would continue this important policy. It would also reauthorize the Pediatric Device Consortia, which in just two and a half years, has assisted in advancing the development of 135 proposed pediatric medical devices and helped get life-saving and life-improving pediatric devices to the patients that need them.

This legislation is critical for children's health. It will help give parents peace of mind that when their doctor prescribes a medication or recommends a medical device for their kids, it is proven safe and effective for specific use in children.

It is my understanding that Chairman Harkin will be including this legislation as part of a broader initiative that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee will soon be considering focused on improving drugs and devices. I look forward to working with Senators Alexander, Murray, and Roberts, as well as the Chairman and others on moving this bill forward before the October deadline.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my fellow Senator from Rhode Island's effort to restore a basic level of fairness to our Tax Code. Senator Whitehouse has done an extraordinary job in fighting to return some sense of balance to a broken system.

Most Americans agree Senator Whitehouse's legislation is fundamentally fair and they want to see it become law because as we all know, the Tax Code is riddled with loopholes that benefit the wealthiest Americans. It is past time we take this first step towards fixing a system that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than middle-class Americans. This is a defining vote--it is about who you stand for and with, working men and women or multimillionaires and billionaires. This legislation signals to middle- class Americans that the government should be focused on helping them, by ensuring that everyone pays their fair share to support essential government programs that invest in education, infrastructure and our nation's future.

The Tax Code stacks the deck for the wealthy at the expense of the middle-class. The middle-class has already been squeezed enough by stagnant wages and a complex tax system that does not work for them. The revenue raised through this measure is deficit reduction that is not taken out on the backs of seniors or working American families. This legislation will only impact 0.2 percent of Rhode Islanders that earn more than $1 million in income per year.

Senator Whitehouse's Paying a Fair Share Act would prevent millionaires and billionaires from using tax loopholes that allow them to pay a lower effective tax rate than a school teacher in Rhode Island.

Of millionaires in 2009, a full 22,000 households making more than $1 million annually paid less than a 15 percent income tax rate. Our Tax Code, riddled with loopholes and special giveaways, leads to lopsided and inequitable results. It is past time we correct these glaring loopholes and restore some fairness to our Tax Code.

The 400 highest-income households in 2008, who made on average $271 million--paid just an 18.1 percent rate. This is nearly half the 29.9 percent rate those households paid on average in 1995 under President Clinton.

According to the Center on Budget Policy Priorities analysis, the top 1 percent have seen their after tax income grow by 277% since 1979. The middle 60 percent of Americans have only seen a 38 percent increase and the bottom 20 percent have only seen an 18 percent increase. This is a result of a broken Tax Code that over the past several decades has been tilted to benefit the wealthiest Americans and not the middle-class.

The tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans have contributed to staggering deficits. These deficits have increased pressure on our budget and motivated Republicans to slash services that benefit middle- class Americans in the name of deficit reduction.

This is exactly why I opposed the reckless Bush tax cuts that skewed so heavily towards the wealthy, the segment of our society that needed the least help. In fact, it is estimated that the House Republican budget would give millionaires an additional $265,000 in tax cuts each year; unsurprisingly, Republicans want to double down on the misguided Bush tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the wealthy.

We need comprehensive tax reform, but not reform that skews the Tax Code even more towards the wealthy while asking for more sacrifice from the middle-class. The Paying a Fair Share Act is a first step in reversing this trend and reforming the Tax Code by restoring fairness.

Making sure that millionaires and billionaires don't pay a lower tax rate than middle-class Americans will help make our Tax Code fairer while addressing our budget deficit. This is common sense and I hope Republicans will join us in taking the first step towards restoring fairness to our tax laws.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague from Rhode Island, to pay tribute to SGT Dennis Weichel, a Rhode Islander who served in the Rhode Island National Guard.

On March 22, Sergeant Weichel was in a convoy with his unit in Laghman Province, Afghanistan. Some children were in the road and Sergeant Weichel and other troops got out to move the children to safety. Most of the children moved out of the way, but one little girl went back to the road. As an MRAP approached, Sergeant Weichel pulled her out of the vehicle's path, but in doing so he was hit by the vehicle. He was medically evacuated to Jalalabad Medical Treatment Facility, where a surgical team worked to stabilize him. But, tragically, he died from his injuries. Because of his heroic actions, the little girl he saved was unharmed in the accident. He will be laid to rest this Monday in Rhode Island, a hero--someone who exemplifies the qualities of the American soldier: selfless sacrifice for others.

Sergeant Weichel joined the National Guard in 2001. He was posthumously promoted to sergeant. He previously deployed to Iraq as a member of Detachment 2, Headquarters, Headquarters Company, 3rd Battalion, of the 172nd Infantry, Mountain. In November 2011, he mobilized for deployment to Afghanistan with the 1st Battalion, 143rd Infantry Regiment.

Each generation of Americans is called upon to protect and sustain our democracy, and there are no greater heroes than the men and women who have worn the uniform of our Nation and who have sacrificed for our country to keep it safe and to keep it free.

It is our duty to protect the freedom they sacrificed their lives for through our service, our citizenship. We must continue to keep their memories alive and honor their heroism, not simply by words but by our deeds as citizens of this country.

Today our thoughts are with Sergeant Weichel's mother Linda, his father Dennis, brother Craig, his sisters Christine and Charlene, his children Nicholas and Hope and their mother Amanda, and his fiancee Ashley and their daughter Madison, and all his family and friends and his comrades-in-arms. We join them in commemorating his sacrifice and honoring his example of selfless service, of love, of courage, and of devotion to the soldiers with whom he served and the people of Afghanistan he was trying to help.

Sergeant Weichel is one among many Rhode Islanders who have proven their loyalty, their integrity, and their personal courage by giving the last full measure of their lives in service to our country in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere around the globe and throughout the years. Today we honor his memory and all those who have served and sacrificed as he did.

Sergeant Weichel joins a roll of honor that includes the following Rhode Islanders killed since September 11, 2001:

SPC Dennis Poulin, Army National Guard; SGT Michael Paranzino, Army; PFC Kyle Coutu, Marine Corps; LTJG Francis L. Toner, IV, Navy; PO3 Ronald A. Gill, Jr., Coast Guard; SGT Michael R. Weidemann, Army; SGT Moises Jazmin, Army; SSG Dale James Kelly, Jr., Army National Guard; SGT Brian R. St. Germain, Marine Corps; SGT Dennis J. Flanagan, Army; 2LT Matthew S. Coutu, Army; LCPL Holly A. Charette, Marine Corps; SSG Christopher S. Potts, Army National Guard; LCPL John J. Van Gyzen, IV, Marine

Corps; CPT Christopher S. Cash, Army; LCPL Matthew K. Serio, Marine Corps; MSG Richard L. Ferguson, Army; SFC Curtis Mancini, Army Reserve; CPT Matthew J. August, Army; CW5 Sharon T. Swartworth, Army; SPC Michael Andrade, Army National Guard; SGT Charles T. Caldwell, Army National Guard; SSG Joseph Camara, Army National Guard; and SGT Gregory A. Belanger, Army Reserve.

All of these men and women have given their lives in the last decade in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a roll of honor. It is a roll that Sergeant Weichel joins. It should be, for us, a roll not just to recognize and remember but to recommit to trying in some small way to match their great sacrifice for this great Nation.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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