Floor Statements

Mr. President, this week, with little fanfare, we completed work on an important bill, through a bipartisan process, by passage of S. 3984, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010.

This bill updates museum and library services funded through the Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS, to better meet the needs of Americans of all ages and in all types of locations.

The Museum and Library Services Act represents our national commitment to the institutions that are essential to building strong and vibrant communities. Through a relatively modest federal investment, this law helps build capacity to support and expand access to library and museum services at the State and local level.

We were able to complete this legislation because we worked together--across the aisle and across the Capitol, and with the input of the museum and library community.

I would like to take a moment to recognize and thank our HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, Ranking Member Mike Enzi, and Senator Richard Burr for working with me to craft this bipartisan legislation. I would also like to recognize our cosponsors, Senators Cochran, Collins, and Tester. In addition, I would like to express my appreciation to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller and Ranking Member John Kline for quickly guiding this bill through the House.

No piece of legislation can be enacted without the diligent work of dedicated staff. I would like to thank Kristin Romero and Margaret Bomba of the office of legislative counsel who worked with us to draft the bill. I would also like to recognize the efforts of staff: Thomas Showalter, Pam Smith, and Bethany Little with Chairman Harkin; Beth Buehlmann and Kelly Hastings with Senator Enzi; Celia Sims with Senator Burr; Lory Yudin with the HELP Committee; and in my office, Elyse Wasch, Moira Lenehan-Razzuri, Andrew Odgren, and Jason Kanter.

Additionally, all of us who worked on this bill appreciate the technical assistance and feedback we received from the staff of IMLS. Finally, I would like

to commend the American Library Association and the American Association of Museums for developing thoughtful recommendations and working with us to improve museum and library services across the Nation. I especially appreciate the wisdom and input I have received from the vibrant library and museum community in Rhode Island.

I look forward to this legislation being swiftly signed into law.

Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, the Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act.

Multiple research studies have shown that people with mental illness are at greater risk of preventable health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes and are more likely to die sooner than healthy individuals--in some instances up to 25 years sooner. In order to address this troubling trend, I authored language in the new health insurance reform law to ensure that individuals with multiple co- occurring mental, behavioral, and physical health conditions have access to a coordinated and integrated health care delivery system. Under this provision, Community Mental Health Centers are authorized to provide patients with mental, behavioral, and primary health care all in one location.

Recently, I was pleased to learn that two Community Mental Health Centers in Rhode Island received funding to begin to offer these co- located services. However, many Community Mental Health Centers are unable to provide this broader range of services due to the limited physical space they occupy. The Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act would authorize grants to states for the construction and modernization of these facilities. Indeed, for some Community Mental Health Centers, facility updates are the first step to enhancing patient care.

I am also pleased that this legislation has been included in a broader piece of legislation that I joined Senator Stabenow in introducing today, the Excellence in Mental Health Act. As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I will continue to work to include these important initiatives in legislation that renews and improves Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, programs.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce, along with my colleague, Senator Stabenow, the Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act.

Multiple research studies have shown that people with mental illness are at greater risk of preventable health conditions such as heart disease and diabetes and are more likely to die sooner than healthy individuals--in some instances up to 25 years sooner. In order to address this troubling trend, I authored language in the new health insurance reform law to ensure that individuals with multiple co- occurring mental, behavioral, and physical health conditions have access to a coordinated and integrated health care delivery system. Under this provision, Community Mental Health Centers are authorized to provide patients with mental, behavioral, and primary health care all in one location.

Recently, I was pleased to learn that two Community Mental Health Centers in Rhode Island received funding to begin to offer these co- located services. However, many Community Mental Health Centers are unable to provide this broader range of services due to the limited physical space they occupy. The Community-Based Mental Health Infrastructure Improvements Act would authorize grants to states for the construction and modernization of these facilities. Indeed, for some Community Mental Health Centers, facility updates are the first step to enhancing patient care.

I am also pleased that this legislation has been included in a broader piece of legislation that I joined Senator Stabenow in introducing today, the Excellence in Mental Health Act. As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, I will continue to work to include these important initiatives in legislation that renews and improves Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, programs.

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

Mr. President, I understand there is unanimous consent that I be recognized and then Senator McCain; is that correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be recognized as soon as I make my remarks and then Senator Bingaman at the conclusion of Senator McCain and then Senator Cardin, and that if there is a Republican seeking recognition between Senator Bingaman and Senator Cardin, that Senator be recognized at that time.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the tax proposal before us. We are in a critical moment. Our economy is slowly climbing from the depths of a deep recession but without additional support it could easily backslide. We cannot afford to let that happen.

There are still too many Americans--15 million--who desperately want the opportunity to work but cannot find a job in this difficult environment. My top priority is creating jobs and sustaining demand to continue job growth in this country.

I have serious concerns about several of the provisions of this bill that will not help us accomplish that goal of creating and sustaining jobs, but I will support this package because right now, back in my home State of Rhode Island, there are approximately 65,000 men and women from all walks of life who are unemployed and need this bill. Many of them are individuals in the middle of their careers who have worked since they were 18 or 21 continuously, productively, and now they find themselves for the first time in their lives without any job. If we do not act, they will be without the means to support their families and provide for their children.

This bill preserves emergency unemployment insurance to help these individuals make ends meet and help them to hold their families together. It will help ensure they can buy the groceries, pay the utility bills, and literally keep a roof over their heads in many cases. Their situation is one of my primary concerns in these difficult times.

Moreover, these unemployment benefits don't just help the jobless, they boost the entire economy as the unemployed spend their benefits at local businesses. Americans want us to focus on creating jobs and generating economic growth. Indeed, for much of the past 2 years, Democrats proposed many things that would help middle-class families and small businesses only to be thwarted or slowed by procedural roadblocks and sometimes disingenuous claims.

Just two Saturdays ago we could not break filibusters of two bills that would have passed the middle-class tax cut and also renewed unemployment benefits without un-needed additions. On several occasions over the past few months we have had legislative initiatives for tax extenders that would have included key elements such as a national housing trust fund and key infrastructure incentives. Again, those two were thwarted by procedural roadblocks.

But now we are faced with the specter of a tax increase on the middle class during this dispiriting economic time if we do not act. Perhaps we could have avoided this situation. The Bush tax cuts, which I opposed, had an artificial termination point in order to fix them into budget projections. But, again, we are here today at the last minute, and it appears the only path our Republican colleagues will accept is the one before us. Indeed, Republicans will not let this train leave the station unless the very wealthiest hitch a ride too.

The challenge we face is the need to sustain and accelerate growth so employment increases while also recognizing the need to reduce the deficit once the economy is stable again. That is no small challenge. As a number of budget deficit commissions have suggested in recent weeks, we may have to consider reforms to Medicare, Social Security, defense funding, tax expenditures, and investment in domestic programs--all of them to stabilize the deficit in the long term. I do not relish

those tasks, and I do not imagine America's families relish it either. However, this is a reality we must confront as our economy improves. It is a reality that will be difficult. It is a reality that will be a great challenge, but it is one we must face.

This bill includes many provisions that will provide economic growth. As I have mentioned before, the effect of an unemployment insurance extension is not just on the individual recipients, it is estimated by nonpartisan experts that nearly $2 of economic activity is generated for each $1 in benefits. That is a very effective stimulus for the economy.

The bill also includes a 2-percent cut in the payroll taxes paid by workers, and after local or State sales taxes, reductions in the payroll tax have the biggest impact on families living on the average wage. Again, this provision is estimated to create more economic activity than it costs, and it will, in essence, be the first raise many workers have seen in several years.

In addition, the proposal contains a host of other benefits for working- and middle-class families--by extending the child tax credit for 10.5 million families as well as an extension of a partially refundable tax credit of up to $2,500 for the cost of college tuition. All of this economic activity means jobs and more money in the pockets of hard-working Americans.

These are targeted, well-designed provisions worthy of support. Indeed, private sector forecasters as well as economists such as Mark Zandi suggest this bill will help maintain the fragile recovery and could lead to a 1-point drop in the unemployment rate and perhaps as much as a 1 percentage increase in GDP in 2011 as compared to previous baselines that took into account only the extension of the middle-class tax cut and expiring provisions such as the AMT.

There is, from experts, considered opinion that this legislation will help grow the economy, reduce the unemployment rate, and put people back to work. The bill also recognizes the need to build on the small business lending and tax credit bills we enacted this summer and fall. Indeed, the provisions to allow businesses to expense 100 percent of all their investments in 2011 is expected to generate more than $50 billion in additional business investment next year. That is private companies investing in private enterprises to put people to work on a private payroll.

The bill also encourages businesses to invest in future products by extending the research and development tax credit to keep us competitive in a very competitive world.

The bill also recognizes the need for clean, domestic energy by continuing the renewable energy production grants for wind, solar, geothermal, and a host of other technologies.

This legislation responsibly ensures that the tax rates in place for lower income and middle-income families stay as they are today. It maintains the middle-class tax cut. Indeed, the great bulk of the benefits of this bill will be directed at stimulating the economy and assisting the average American family.

But in the face of this deficit, it is very difficult to justify the provisions of the bill for the wealthiest Americans because they provide negligible economic growth while adding to the deficit. In fact, these provisions work against the two great issues we must grapple with, stimulating growth and beginning to control the deficit. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and other experts, the decision to provide millionaires and billionaires with tax breaks will not generate many jobs because they are more apt to save these benefits than circulate them in the local economies throughout the United States.

In particular, the decision to insist on such an aggressive estate tax proposal is very difficult to justify. Instead of adopting a commonsense proposal that would have exempted well over 95 percent of all estates, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle demanded that the bill contain a tax break worth more than $25 billion over the next 2 years for the top one-quarter of 1 percent. Let me repeat that, a $25 billion provision that benefits one-quarter of 1 percent of all estates.

It is a slight comfort that these provisions are not permanent. While I would gladly support an effort to remove or modify these provisions immediately, at the very least they have to be the first on the list of those tough decisions we have to face in order to reduce the deficit in the future. We do have to address the deficit and part of that effort must clearly be through tax reform and eliminating tax expenditures.

I think there is too often a perception that tax cuts are free. As my colleague from Illinois suggested, failing to link the debt ceiling with this particular legislation could give the impression that we can cut taxes with no effect on the deficit. These tax cuts do add to the deficit. We have to recognize that. When we come back to face the difficult issues as we did in the 1990s--I supported President Clinton's efforts which led to a balanced budget, which led to a surplus, which led to employment gains--those decisions involved revenue, cutting entitlements, cutting defense spending, and making a lot of difficult choices. We will have to face those choices again.

We are at a point where the benefits of this bill are necessary to accelerate economic growth and to help the unemployed and struggling middle class families. That is why I will support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to our colleagues who are departing the Senate after distinguished service on behalf of their States and on behalf of the Nation. I have been privileged to work with these individuals, to learn from them, to collaborate and cooperate with them, and to, in some small way, help them do what they have done so well--represent their States with fidelity, with great effort, and to move the agenda of the Nation forward.

Evan Bayh

Evan Bayh, a colleague and friend. We served together on the Banking Committee and the Armed Services Committee. His lovely wife Susan and their two children have contributed extraordinarily to Indiana as a Governor, and then as a Senator serving the Nation.

I can recall very early on in the operations in Iraq, where it became clear to Senator Bayh that unless we armored our humvee vehicles, thousands and thousands of soldiers would be at risk, and also marines, sailors, and airmen. He fought tenaciously to ensure, against initial opposition, that we were able to begin to armor those vehicles, begin to develop new generations of armored vehicles to protect our soldiers. So, quite literally, his efforts saved the lives of thousands of young Americans. For that alone, we owe him a huge debt of gratitude.

In every endeavor, from issues of children's health to education policy, he brought a thoughtful, measured, and brilliant mind to bear that is hard to match. I wish him the very best.

Robert Bennett

Bob Bennett and I served together on the Banking Committee. His thoughtful questioning and his deep knowledge of the subjects were critical on so many different issues. I remember when we were trying to get the extension of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act completed so the markets--particularly the markets for large properties--would not freeze up, he was instrumental in getting that done. That is just one example of what he has done throughout a career of public service to the people of Utah and of this Nation. I wish he and Joyce the very best as they continue to serve, as I am sure they will, this Nation and their State of Utah.

Kit Bond

Kit Bond and Linda Bond have served with such distinction also. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, he has made wise and judicious decisions about how we invest in this country. In that process, he never forgot the obligation to groups who are often overlooked.

One of the areas where he has done so much work, and so effectively, has been on the issue of homelessness. His efforts, joined by our colleagues and friends, Barbara Mikulski and Patty Murray, have made a real difference in providing effective and efficient shelter for so many in our large communities and in our rural areas, who otherwise literally would be on the streets of America. One of the most disheartening images in this country is to see people who are forced to be on the streets. There are many reasons for that. But Kit Bond has done a lot to ensure there is at least a capacity to help people who need that kind of help. I thank him for that and commend him for so much of what he has done for the people of Missouri and the people of this Nation.

Sam Brownback

I congratulate Governor-elect Sam Brownback. He has decided to leave the rigors of the Senate for the tranquility of being a Governor. I see our Presiding Officer, who enjoyed the tranquility of being the Governor of Virginia. I know Sam is going to do great, but I think at some moment he might mop his brow and say that it wasn't quite as hectic back in the Senate.

Along with Mary and his family he has distinguished himself. Sam is someone who is indefatigable when involved in an issue. He does it from principle and conscience. We appreciate that.

I was pleased to work with him on legislation I introduced, the Conquer Childhood Cancer Act, which became law. That is one example of his great skills as a legislator. In foreign affairs he was someone who kept watch on areas of the world which otherwise might have been neglected. His efforts with respect to Darfur, striving to bring justice and peace to that region, are particularly commendable. I thank the Senator for his service and wish him well as he assumes the daunting responsibilities as Governor of the State of Kansas.

Jim Bunning

Senator Jim Bunning and I served together for many years on the Banking Committee. Jim and Mary Catherine and their family brought so much to not only the Senate as an organization, but to the Senate as a group of individuals. Jim was one of the first and most insightful observers and critics of the growing issues in the securities market. He did it based upon his experience as a financial stockbroker in the world of finance. He did it also with his grasp of common sense and looking at things carefully and pragmatically, based on Main Street not on financial centers. We worked together on the Securities Committee, and we did it in a way that I enjoyed the collaboration immensely.

A focus on the issues and their importance to the country was also in the forefront of his mind. He distinguished himself immensely. I wish him well.

Roland Burris

Senator Roland Burris brought a great bit of vitality and energy to the Senate in his time here. I wish Roland and Berlean the very best. He has had a remarkable career in Illinois as someone who was in the banking industry and then public service--been a pathbreaker in so many different ways. When he came to the Senate, he came

with that same enthusiasm, knowing that his service would be limited in days but not limited by any aspirations or any ideals. He wanted to do the best for the people of Illinois and the Nation. I thank him.

Byron Dorgan

Next is Byron and Kim Dorgan and their family. Again, Byron was an integral part for many years in this Senate. He is one of those individuals whose wisdom you appreciate more and more each day. He is someone who spoke years ago about the offshoring of jobs, and he spoke years ago about a tax system that doesn't reward investment in American jobs but ironically might encourage disinvestment of those jobs. He is someone who spoke with reason, candor, thoughtfulness, and facts about issues that the rest of us are beginning to recognize today are critical to the future of this country.

We will also miss his steady hand on the Appropriations Committee, where he battled to ensure that the reasonable priorities of this Nation were met. His support and help in terms of LIHEAP funding and his help to me personally in so many different ways is deeply appreciated. I thank him for his service. I know he will continue to provide, in his writings and speeches, the wise and thoughtful insights that, again, as we look back, I think we should have heeded with much more energy and enthusiasm when he spoke them.

Russ Feingold

Senator Russ Feingold--and this is said often, but it applies so accurately--is a conscience of this body. He is someone who came here to fight for the principles in which he deeply believes and would not deviate from that very serious challenge. He did it with skill, thoughtfulness, and gentility. I appreciate that very much. He was a champion for so many things--Pell grants, making sure the opportunity was still a watchword of this country. What he was most famous for was his efforts in campaign finance reform. Frankly, we will miss him dearly because of that.

There is a growing concern in this country that elections have become auctions, not about the quality of the candidates and their positions, but simply how much money can be funded and by how many different sources. So at a time when we have to confront again an even more serious challenge of campaign finance reform, we are losing one of the great voices and great minds in that effort. I know he will be helping us in this effort going forward, and I thank him for that.

Carte Goodwin

Carte Goodwin served with us for a very brief period of time, but in that time, we saw the incredible talent of this young Senator--his skill, his judgment, his ability to communicate with everyone in this Senate. He has been succeeded by another remarkable gentleman, Senator Manchin, who is certainly keeping up the high standards of Senators from West Virginia.

Carte, good luck, and thank you for your service, and I know you will continue to serve the country.

Judd Gregg

Senator Judd Gregg and Kathleen are stalwarts in the Senate, with their 18 years of service. I worked very closely with Judd on so many issues but most recently on the Dodd-Frank bill, where we worked collaboratively on this whole complex concept of derivatives. I was impressed with his intellect, his grasp, his balance, and I think we both pushed ourselves to think harder, to do better, and to come up with a solution, frankly, that was much better than I know I could have done individually. So I thank Judd Gregg for what he did there and on so many other things.

Ted Kaufman

My dear friend Ted Kaufman and Lynne. We traveled the world together--including Afghanistan multiple times. He served with such distinction. He took up the effort to ensure that our securities markets in particular are well regulated, especially in regard to the new phenomenon of high-frequency trading. And it is no coincidence that just this week, we had a hearing on high-frequency trading. Ted has not let us forget that very critical issue for the future.

George LeMieux

Senator George LeMieux and his wife Meike. Again, they served here for a short period of time but with such distinction, such character, and such concern. I want to salute him. He and I worked together on the Teacher and Principal Improvement Act. He is a brilliant and a decent civil servant. I thank him.

Blanche Lincoln

Blanche Lincoln. Blanche and I served in the House together. She decided to raise her family and then came back to the Senate. I can say without any hesitation that without her very courageous stand with respect to some of the aspects of the Dodd-Frank financial legislation, it would not be as comprehensive, as effective as it is today. She stood up and essentially demanded that we create a structure where you could trade derivatives rather than simply clear them. That is a remarkable achievement, and it is her achievement.

Arlen Specter

Finally--and I beg the indulgence of my colleague from Vermont, who I know is scheduled to speak--let me say to Arlen Specter and Joan Specter, thank you for such service. Senator Specter is the champion of NIH. It is an incredible achievement, what he has done to fund that over the years.

George Voinovich

Mr. President, first, let me thank my colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, for allowing me to precede him.

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor this morning to urge my colleagues--all of us--to move very quickly to pass tax relief for middle-income Americans. We have a crisis in this country: a crisis of jobs, a crisis of income for middle-class families. One of the ironies is I was here in 2001 when the Bush tax cuts were proposed. One of the major premises of those tax cuts was, well, this is going to free up the engine of job creation. It is going to result in such economic growth that our surplus--and at that time we had a surplus--is going to be sustained, if not increased.

The record is that we have seen the worst private sector job creation in this decade since pre-World War II. We have seen the incomes of middle-class Americans stagnate, while we have seen the incomes of the very richest expand dramatically.

One of the phenomena that was taking place at the end of the 1990s and in 2000 and was a function of several things--first, tough tax votes by Democrats alone in 1993 to begin to balance the budget; second, Federal Reserve policy that recognized those tough votes and was appropriate in terms of providing an adequate interest rate level; and the third was something, frankly, we did not even recognize: the explosion of information technology in terms of how it made us more productive--but those three factors together led us to the year 2000, to a situation where we had a surplus. We had unemployment rates that were very low, particularly relative to today.

Then the Bush administration came in and decided tax cuts, particularly tax cuts for the upper income Americans--because that was the implicit argument, that they create the jobs--if you give those tax cuts to the wealthy, they will create the jobs. Well, we have had 10 years of real experience, and that has not worked.

There are other factors that intervened. We have had two wars we chose not to pay for, increasing the deficit; we vastly expanded entitlements--not reforming them really but expanding them--through Part D of the Medicare Program, which was also unpaid for.

Now we are looking at the worst economic performance we have seen since the 1930s. We need to do two hugely challenging missions: First, we have to grow jobs. We have to continue to sustain demand. That is why in that context a tax cut for middle-income Americans makes some sense now. I did not think the package of tax cuts made any sense in 2001. I voted against it. I think we should have stuck with the hard- won surplus, investing in the country. Or if we were going to provide tax relief, give it to the middle class, give it through a reduction in payroll taxes that will encourage more employment, give it in a way where it is targeted to those people who are struggling with jobs, with college tuition. That was not the choice that was made though. I think that choice back in 2001 was the incorrect choice.

But now we have another choice, and this choice--again, mission 1: How do we keep this demand going? How do we sustain it? There is a strong argument to provide a continuation of the middle-class tax cuts.

But the next mission is, how do we rein in this deficit? That requires tough choices. To me, the idea of withholding further income tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, that is something that in terms of deficit reduction is probably a lot easier to do--and, frankly, there is nothing easy to do around here these days--but a lot easier to do than some of the glib discussion or claims that we will just reform Medicare, or we will reform this entitlement, or we will cut this defense program, et cetera. All of that may have to be done, but ask yourselves: If we cannot do this, how likely will we be able to take on even tougher issues that confront us?

So I think this is a defining moment in terms of our continuation of supporting working families, expanding the economy, growing jobs in America, and also taking at least a small step to begin to deal with the deficit. We know the addition of these tax breaks for the wealthiest--and let me put the tax issue in context. We have a progressive tax system. People who make a lot of money will enjoy all the tax reductions that stay in place for middle Americans. They will not enjoy the tax cuts that were imposed by the Bush administration for the wealthiest. That cost to the Nation over 10 years will be $700 billion of additional deficit.

We are already in a hole, and we are going to dig ourselves much deeper. We can decide--and I hope we do--to continue to try to provide support to middle-income Americans, and at the same time achieve that other objective which must be dealt with: somehow trying to get a handle on the deficit--a deficit that the President inherited, along with an unemployment rate that was unacceptable. Progress has been made, not enough progress in terms of employment, and we have to keep up the effort.

So this is an issue of providing support for working Americans and beginning the long-term difficult task of getting the deficit under control. It is a difficult task. I was here in 1992 and 1993 and 1994 when it was done--and it was a difficult, arduous task.

The bill that Chairman Baucus is offering today will also extend the Making Work Pay tax credit that gives all working Americans a $400 tax cut in their paycheck through 2011--again, to encourage work in the United States. It will make the child tax credit permanent. It cuts taxes for families paying college tuition, State and local sales tax, and property taxes. All of that is aimed at working families, our constituents. It also cuts taxes for business research and development, other programs that are going to help, we believe, stimulate job creation. These are very important.

At the crux of it, though, is this decision to support working Americans, middle-income Americans. Again, there is a tendency in these kinds of debates to be stereotypical and to misunderstand. People who have been very successful in the country and make a lot of money work awfully hard, but I use the term to refer to those middle-income Americans who are working very hard, facing real challenges, and don't have the same kind of support they just had, if you will, 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years ago to fall back on.

There is another aspect of this legislation that is pending before us. One point I wish to make is that there is a national housing trust fund that was discussed being included. That is not included, and I hope we can include it. That is another program that is going to help put people to work, and I hope we can do that.

Then, of course, there is the other aspect of the Baucus bill; that is, the emergency unemployment compensation. We just received a report from the Council of Economic Advisers, and they have pointed out that this program has helped 14 million unemployed workers as of October 2010, and at that time, there were nearly 5 million unemployed workers benefitting from these programs each week--5 million Americans. These people were working. They got caught up in this recession. This is, for many of them, the only constant source of support they have now as they look for work.

We have seen this benefit not just the recipients but their families. In fact, there has been an estimate of about 40 million people--spouses and 10.5 million children--who have depended in part on getting these unemployment benefits.

It has also been able to maintain employment. There is an estimate that 800,000 jobs have been maintained and created because of this unemployment compensation. That is because when someone gets their check, they do not usually toss it aside; they cash it. They go to the grocery store. They go to the gas station. They go to places they have to go. They put a little tuition down if they have to pay tuition on a child's education because they desperately need these funds. So in that regard, it creates and sustains jobs.

We are in danger, frankly, of seeing this UI program terminated. I think we have to continue it. I think it will add immensely to the efforts under way to help middle-income Americans. The average benefit is about $300 a week. That is certainly not an inducement to say: I don't need to look for work; I want to spend the rest of my life making $300 a week. The program provides up to 99 weeks of benefits. There is no attempt to extend it, but it would be the same 99 weeks people were able to benefit from 2 years ago. So I think we have to do that. That is part of this debate also. I would hate to see that the only thing we do at the end of this day is pass tax cuts and not also include unemployment compensation.

I think we have to have a middle-class tax cut, but we also have to have unemployment compensation benefits extended. I don't have to tell anyone in this room that the unemployment rate is too high everywhere. In my State, it seems to hover between 10 and 12 percent. We have never withheld emergency unemployment benefits nationally as long as the unemployment rate was above 7.2 percent. Republican administrations, Democratic Congresses; Democratic administrations, Republican Congresses--in every combination, we have always understood that this program needs to be renewed.

So I have heard other proposals such as, let's do this, but let's offset it by unobligated funds. But these unobligated funds could include many things. For example, they could include a border fence in Arizona and California because there are funds there that are unobligated. Now, I ask some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, is that what they intend? Border Patrol stations in Texas, Arizona, California, and Washington. Construction of Coast Guard ships and planes and the National Security Cutter built in Mississippi. Then there are cyber security investments to secure Federal information systems. We have just been briefed on the profound and deleterious impact of the WikiLeaks. We have a lot of work to do to improve our security systems. Are those unobligated funds coming out of that program? Homelessness assistance grants that go to help people who, in many respects, are homeless because of a combination of factors: They have lost their jobs; they have different problems. So, literally, are we borrowing from Peter to pay Paul? Are we telling someone they can't get Section 8 housing because we paid someone else's unemployment benefits?

So the proposal to pay for this by unobligated expenditures might have some rhetorical appeal, but I ask, what are these expenditures? If we are so committed to being clean and transparent about what we are doing here, then list them out: We are going to cut funds for border fence, Border Patrol stations, the Coast Guard. This is how we are paying for it. Otherwise, I think, frankly, we should go ahead and pass this as we have always done--as emergency spending--because it has a stimulative effect. For every dollar of unemployment compensation, there is estimated to be $1.90 of economic activity. It goes right back to the obvious, simple point we all grasp: When that check comes in, it is not tossed aside. It is cashed immediately for grocery store visits--all of those things are done. It gets the economy moving.

We are at a crisis, at a critical point. We have 10 years of experience that, despite all the rhetoric, tax cuts that go to the wealthiest Americans probably don't contribute directly and immediately to jobs in the United States. We can save not only working Americans by giving them a little help in their tax check, but we can begin the long, difficult struggle of going from a deficit to a surplus. I have done it once. It is not easy.

Frankly, I think the choice before us in the next 6 or 7 months will look a lot clearer and more graphically in favor of the position we are advancing than some of the proposals that are floating around in terms of programs such as Medicare and defense spending, et cetera. All of them have to be looked at. But if we can't do this, I think a lot of Americans and people around the globe are going to start asking the question: Do they have the political capacity to make the difficult choices that are necessary?

A final point. Many of my colleagues say, and I think with great insight, that the real judge of some of our economic policies is the marketplace, the people who buy our Treasury securities. I wonder if they see us as literally unable to make this choice between stimulus for the middle-income Americans through tax cuts but saving $700 billion. We can't make that choice? I wonder what that is going to do to their confidence in our ability to make tough choices down the road, the confidence that keeps them buying Treasury securities. We should think about that.

I urge passage of the proposals we have before us that would provide a middle-income tax credit while saving money and preserving further deficit spending under the Republican proposal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to my dear friend and colleague and, in a very real sense, mentor. I can testify from the experience of the last 2 years to his remarkable contributions to this country.

I don't believe any other Senator could have navigated the treacherous

waters of the Dodd-Frank bill. It was like watching a great conductor conduct a complicated piece of music: knowing when to pause and let tempers cool, knowing when to pick up the tempo, knowing when to come to the final conclusion. It was a virtuosos performance, in keeping with a career of contributing to Connecticut and to this country.

The most remarkable tribute I have ever heard about this wonderful man was in a very unusual place by a person who honestly probably doesn't know who he is. It was May 21, 2010. I was visiting a wounded soldier at Walter Reed Army Hospital, a member of the Second Battalion, 508 Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division. He had been wounded around Kandahar by an IED. Fortunately, he was on the road to recovery. We joked for a moment and talked about his experiences, and I turned to his mother, who was sitting there watching her son, her life, her hope make a full recovery, and I said: How are you doing?

She said to me very simply: I am doing fine. You see, I was able to take family medical leave and be with my son while he recuperated.

She probably doesn't know who Senator Dodd is or what he did, but she, along with 50 million other Americans, was by the hospital bed of a wounded son or a sick child or an ailing parent. To me, that is the greatest tribute to what Senator Dodd has done.

There is a great line I recall about Franklin Roosevelt. His cortege was winding its way through Washington. A man was sobbing, sobbing, sobbing. A reporter rushed up to him: Well, you are so affected. You must have known the President. Did you know the President?

He said: No, I never knew the President, but he knew me.

Chris Dodd knew the people of Connecticut and the people of the United States, and in every moment, he served them with integrity and diligence and honor.

Chris, to you, to your family--and I say this because your mother is from Westerly, RI, God bless her; and your beloved sister, our dear friends Martha and Bernie, from Rhode Island--as an adopted son of Rhode Island, thank you for your service to the Nation.

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

Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to assist literally hundreds of thousands of families across this country who are out of work through no fault of their own, who are battling with the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression, who are chasing jobs that have disappeared, and they are looking everywhere to try to find work. We have the opportunity to extend unemployment benefits for an additional year.

In my State of Rhode Island, people are in a very serious situation. They are struggling to stay in their homes, to educate their children, to deal with the challenges of everyday life. They

have worked hard and long all of their lives, and now they are finding it difficult to find a job.

In every situation previously in this country, we have come to their assistance. We have done so by extending unemployment benefits. We have never failed to do that as long as the unemployment rate was above 7.2 or 7.4 percent. Today across the country, it is close to 9 percent nationally. In my State of Rhode Island, it is much higher. We have always done it on an emergency basis because it truly is an emergency. We haven't had to offset because we have always determined that it was necessary to get the money to the people who could use it, who needed it desperately, and we should do that again.

I find it difficult to understand how some of my colleagues on the other side would object to an extension of unemployment benefits for a year that are not offset but at the same time insist that we provide tax cuts to the very richest Americans, without paying for them, and insist that we add approximately $700 billion to our deficit by extending tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year--and many making many times that amount--yet for unemployed Americans desperately seeking work and not finding it, they would insist that we not only have to pay for it, but we have delayed and delayed the process of getting them assistance. It is difficult to justify those two positions.

It is also difficult to justify those two positions because what we know is that unemployment compensation benefits give us a much bigger bang for the buck than the extension of tax relief to upper income citizens. The Congressional Budget Office has rated the effectiveness of various techniques to provide assistance and stimulate demand in the economy. They have found that unemployment insurance is far and away the most effective form--much more effective than tax cuts to the wealthy.

CBO estimates that for every dollar of unemployment compensation benefits that we inject into the economy, we get $1.90 of economic activity, which is almost a 2-for-1 payback. So we are in a situation where this is not only the appropriate policy to pursue, but it is the most effective one in order to keep demand and the economy and growth moving forward.

I am someone who believes in fiscal responsibility. That is why I took, in the 1990s, difficult votes in order to balance the budget under President Clinton, to raise not only our output but also to balance the budget and have a surplus in 2000. I opposed the proposal and the tax cuts favored by Republican colleagues in 2000 because I understood that the difficult, hard fought, fiscal responsibility could easily be frittered away because what looked like a surplus in 2000 could be affected by unforeseen events, such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or changes in the world economy that we could not contemplate. I knew how difficult it was in the nineties to get our house in order. I was opposed to these tax cuts. I hope everybody else realizes the demographics of the country at that time.

In 1993-1994, we took tough votes to build up a surplus because we knew what was coming. We had a demographic wave--the baby boomers--that would qualify for Medicare and Social Security, and that would, by the nature of the sheer size of that population, put extra demands upon our budget.

Despite all of that, taxes were cut, wars were pursued unpaid for. For the first time in the history of the country, we engaged in major military operations and didn't even make an attempt to pay for them. That is not the definition of fiscal responsibility. Yet many of the same proponents of that policy are urging us today that we cannot do unemployment compensation insurance unless we pay for it. But, of course, let's extend the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, including the wealthiest, and in that case add another $700 billion to our deficit over 10 years. That doesn't seem to make any economic sense.

This proposal is supported by people who are knowledgeable about the way the economy works. In a statement released today, 33 economists, including 5 recipients of the Nobel Prize in economics and 5 former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, have said:

Continuing the about-to-expire federal emergency

unemployment insurance program, which provides extra weeks of

benefits to the long-term unemployed, is sensible economic

policy that will not only assist the unemployed but help

maintain spending, overall demand, and employment at this

critical point in the recovery. . . . Eliminating these

benefits, on the other hand, will cause hardship for the

long-term unemployed, scale back spending, and weaken the

economy since unemployment benefits are one of the most

effective means available to support overall demand.

Unemployment has remained above 9 percent for 18 months

already and will likely remain high for some time to come,

making a strong case for continuing the current program for

another 12 months. Moreover, the special provisions for

extending unemployment insurance during recessions have

traditionally been financed by short-term fiscal deficits and

this remains a prudent approach. The program will not

contribute significantly to long-term deficits because its

costs will diminish automatically as the economy recovers and

unemployment returns to more normal levels.

Let me say that again in my own words. Our colleagues are suggesting a permanent extension of tax cuts that will cost, over 10 years, $700 billion, and presumably 10 years after that and 10 years after that. That is a huge structural change to our revenue. Unemployment compensation benefits are cyclical. They rise in difficult times, like today, and they fall as the economy recovers. So we are not talking about a long-term commitment to a program of deficit enhancement; we are talking about short-term relief for struggling Americans.

I think these economists make the case extraordinarily well. I ask unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the Record.

As I indicated before, their view has been echoed by the CBO. Tax cuts, in their view, are the least effective form of economic stimulus, and the most effective is unemployment insurance benefits.

On November 16, the Department of Labor released an independent study that was commissioned during the Bush administration. It found that since mid-2008, the Federal unemployment insurance program has saved 1.6 million jobs in every quarter, averting 1.8 million layoffs per quarter at the height of the downturn, and reduced the unemployment rate by 1.2 points.

Separately, the Economic Policy Institute has found that continuing the programs through the end of 2011 will support the creation of 700,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

People who get unemployment insurance benefits tend to take that money and go to the grocery store or buy shoes for their children or pay down, if they can, some of their credit card debt. Maybe in this holiday season they will buy an extra present for their children. That keeps our economy moving, and it keeps the people in the grocery stores working, people at department stores working, and the manufacturers producing these goods working.

Our economy grew at 2 percent in the third quarter and in a recent Wall Street Journal article, Goldman Sachs analyst Alec Phillips estimated that if unemployment insurance benefits expired, it would shave half a percentage point from growth. Such a decline would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. So here is a policy that will expand jobs, maintain jobs, and if we don't pursue it, we will find ourselves contracting employment at the very time that all Americans are asking us to do something very clear-cut: get jobs, keep jobs, produce jobs, and find a way to create them. This could also engender a downward spiral because if the jobs contract, that could be the beginning of further contraction, and it could leave us in a worse situation.

So not only will families feel the brunt of this lack of unemployment compensation benefits, it is the small businesses throughout every community--it is the retailers and the people who depend upon their neighborhood customers to come in and buy the goods and services that not only provide them what they need but also provides the cash flow for small businesses to keep operating.

Failure to maintain unemployment insurance will mean that 2 million jobless workers will lose benefits in December. Two million Americans, this December, will stop receiving benefits. Several hundred thousand unemployed workers will lose their benefits every month, culminating in up to 6 million losing benefits by the end of 2011. Now is the time to govern, the time to act, and now is the time to do what we have always done in a situation like this. It is the time to act promptly and timely and pass an extension of the unemployment insurance benefits.

We have seen over the last year delay after delay. We have seen benefits expire only to retroactively be restored through procedural votes and delays.

One of the ironies is that we get these procedural votes that we can't move forward on a bill but, finally, when the bill comes up to a vote, there is overwhelming support, which suggests to me that the process of delay has taken primacy over the substance of policy. That is not worthy of our constituents and the crisis they face today in this country. We have, as I said, continuously maintained unemployment compensation benefits, and we have extended benefits whenever our unemployment rate nationally is above 7.2 percent. Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, Republican Congresses, and Democratic Congresses have always recognized that at the level of 9 percent unemployment, extended unemployment benefits were almost automatic--something you had to do for all the reasons I have cited, such as the economic effects on the economy, but most fundamentally it is giving people a chance to just make ends meet until they can find a job.

So I think we are in a position where we must go forward. Acting now is the right thing to do, the responsible thing to do, and the wise economic thing to do. We need to swiftly pass this 1-year extension.

Many colleagues are joining Senator Baucus, the chairman of the committee, in introducing this legislation. I urge at this point that we move forward, and at this point I make the following request.

Yes.

I think the Senator from Illinois has stated it very clearly, very succinctly, and very accurately. That, apparently, is the choice. It is a choice I find difficult to understand for the reasons the Senator has laid out. We want to respond to the needs of so many families, working families. And this is one of those programs that, by definition--if you qualify for unemployment benefits, you had a job, you just lost it. So these are working families who are now looking for some support as they search desperately for jobs.

As we pointed out too, not just in terms of the individual recipients but for the economy overall, the benefit is substantial. It is about $1.90 in economic activity for every $1 that we put into the benefit. On the other side of the spectrum, economists have looked at the impact of these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and find very little growth in economic activity, and, frankly, that makes sense. This is not economics at MIT or Harvard or anyplace else. If you are struggling at $368 a month, it is not going to go into your vacation fund or for buying objects of art. It is going to go to the grocery store and into all of the demands of a family. If you are fortunate enough through your hard work and through your ingenuity to be making over $1 million a year, your consumption package is not going to be altered dramatically by these tax cuts. That is the conclusion of the economists, and I think the Senator said it very well.

Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3981

So I thank the Senator from Illinois, but at this juncture, I would like to formally, Madam President, ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 3981, a bill to provide for a temporary extension of unemployment insurance provisions, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating thereto appear at the appropriate place in the Record, as if read.

If the Senator will pause for a moment, I am concluding, and then the Senator will have his own time.

Again, I think it is unfortunate that we cannot move this bill. I think, to put it very succinctly, we will try again. I hope we can. I hope we will for the sake of our country, small businesses, and families across my State and in this Nation who need this help and assistance.

With that, I yield the floor.

I object.

Madam President, my colleague from Massachusetts has made a rather vigorous and impassioned statement. What I sense, though, is he is quite willing to put $700 billion of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans on the credit card but not extend unemployment benefits, as we have done persistently, decade after decade, without offsets, for people who are struggling without work. So if we are talking about coming together, avoiding increased deficits, let's look at this big issue of these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Let's look at the offsets there, I suggest.

I also suggest, in terms of his argument we are not doing anything, that the record, unfortunately, of my colleagues on the other side, with respect to this issue--and we are talking about the issue of unemployment compensation benefits extension--has been one of delay and delay and delay. June 17 of this year we tried to extend these benefits and it failed in a cloture vote. They would not even let us get to the substance of the bill or amendments, perhaps, which could have paid for them or tried to offset them.

Then we came back on June 24, a week later, and had another vote. Of course, again, by 57 to 41 it was opposed.

Now we come to July 20. It finally passed 60 to 40, the minimum number of votes. The vast majority of the opposing caucus still says no.

The notion that we are somehow blocking dealing with the economic issues is so far from reality. What we have seen is obstruction, particularly when it comes to unemployment compensation benefits. Now here we are again. As I said, when you look back to Republican administrations and Democratic administrations, when we have had this level of unemployment, we have always managed to come together and to go ahead and pass these measures on a bipartisan basis and not with three cloture votes but with one perhaps procedural vote and then a substantive vote.

The issue, though, is let's not be selective. If we are serious about the deficit, let's take some positive steps to reduce the deficit. One is not to extend tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans at $700 billion over 10 years. That is a positive step. If that is something that is going to be entertained by the other side, I encourage that discussion. But as we go forward, we are going to come back, again, because ultimately we have these discussions.

I think my colleague from Massachusetts has passion, sincerity, and great energy which he has brought to this body, but ultimately we are going to have to go to people in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, several million of them over the next year, and say: Sorry, you are not getting any unemployment compensation benefits.

Will we go to the wealthiest and say: Oh, by the way, we took care of you folks; you are getting $100,000 in tax benefits. I think we have to deal with the immediate crisis. I think we have to deal with the families who are struggling today. I think we have to do it now. I hope our leaders could work out an arrangement where we could come to this floor and, in a scheduled debate, 5 hours on one side, 5 on the other, and take the vote. That has not been the record on unemployment compensation in this Congress.

Again, I object. The issue, the offset, discretionary spending--I think if you burrowed down into that, you would find that would be funds of a whole category of programs that could be spent, should be spent, to help the economy move forward.

But I again urge we reconvene, that we once again see if we can work our way forward on these unemployment compensation benefits. We have done this before through these procedural delays that were as a result of votes by my colleagues on this side not to take up the bill in a timely manner. We had periods of time where unemployment lapsed and we had to retroactively restore it. We may have to do that again.

If there is delay, if we are at the 11th hour, I, frankly, looking backward, and others would have preferred an extension of benefits that would have gone way past this point, would have gone into next year if we had to. We are talking about a year's extension now. I hope we can get that. We will continue to fight.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee-- Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and Senator Burr in introducing the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010.

Together our offices worked to craft a bipartisan bill that updates museum and library services funded through the Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS, to better meet the needs of Americans of all ages and in all types of locations.

The Museum and Library Services Act was first enacted in 1996, and my predecessor, the late Senator Claiborne Pell, was instrumental in its development and enactment. This law established IMLS, an independent Federal agency, to oversee funding and programs authorized under the law's two main subtitles, the Library Services and Technology Act, LSTA, and the Museum Services Act.

Libraries and museums are rich centers of learning, woven into the fabric of our communities, big and small, urban and rural.

Libraries are not just places to read and borrow books or for parents to bring their children for story time. During the economic recession, even as libraries are being forced to do more with less, more and more people are also turning to their public libraries for access to information and the Internet, job search and training programs, and business development help.

As noted in the new report, ``Opportunity for All: How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access at U.S. Libraries,'' nearly half of the 169 million visitors to public libraries over the past year used a library computer to connect to the Internet during their visit. Accessing information on education, employment, and health were most commonly cited for this computer and Internet usage.

Museums also provide 21st century learning opportunities, while connecting communities to the culture, science, art, and events that make up humankind's history. The estimated 17,500 museums in the United States reflect the great diversity of our nation. They are large and small; urban and rural; local, national, and international; and include aquariums, arboretums, historical societies, nature centers, zoos, planetariums, art museums, and many other types of museums.

Museums contribute to the quality of life and the economic development of their home communities. They are key partners in offering hands-on, self directed learning for students of all ages. They draw tourism, which contributes to local economies.

The Museum and Library Services Act represents our national commitment to these institutions that are essential to building strong and vibrant communities. Through a relatively modest federal investment, this law helps build capacity to support and expand access to library and museum services at the state and local level.

In Rhode Island, library funding has supported improved online resources; literacy initiatives, including a summer reading program; and the provision of talking books to residents with visual impairments and disabilities. Through museum funding, the Museum of Art at the Rhode Island School of Design, the Preservation Society of Newport, and the Blithewold Mansion, Gardens, and Arboretum have all received support this past year.

The legislation we are introducing updates the law to reflect the education and workforce development role libraries have been playing, including helping the out-of-work look for jobs, equipping business owners with data to make informed business decisions, and helping young and old alike gain critical digital literacy skills--the skills that help to discern fact from fiction when using the Internet.

Our bill will also help enhance training and professional development for librarians and ensure the development of a diverse library workforce, including by authorizing the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian program, which has been previously funded through annual appropriations.

It will help build state capacity to support museums by authorizing IMLS to support state assessments of museum services and the development and implementation of state plans to improve and enhance those services. Our bill will also strengthen conservation and preservation efforts.

Additionally, it seeks to fully leverage the role of libraries and museums in supporting the learning, educational, and workforce development needs of Americans by requiring IMLS to improve coordination and collaboration with other federal agencies that

also have an interest in and responsibilities for the improvement of museum and libraries and information services.

I thank my colleagues for joining me in this endeavor and urge the Senate to take quick action to adopt this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee-- Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and Senator Burr in introducing the Museum and Library Services Act of 2010.

Together our offices worked to craft a bipartisan bill that updates museum and library services funded through the Institute for Museum and Library Services, IMLS, to better meet the needs of Americans of all ages and in all types of locations.

The Museum and Library Services Act was first enacted in 1996, and my predecessor, the late Senator Claiborne Pell, was instrumental in its development and enactment. This law established IMLS, an independent Federal agency, to oversee funding and programs authorized under the law's two main subtitles, the Library Services and Technology Act, LSTA, and the Museum Services Act.

Libraries and museums are rich centers of learning, woven into the fabric of our communities, big and small, urban and rural.

Libraries are not just places to read and borrow books or for parents to bring their children for story time. During the economic recession, even as libraries are being forced to do more with less, more and more people are also turning to their public libraries for access to information and the Internet, job search and training programs, and business development help.

As noted in the new report, ``Opportunity for All: How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access at U.S. Libraries,'' nearly half of the 169 million visitors to public libraries over the past year used a library computer to connect to the Internet during their visit. Accessing information on education, employment, and health were most commonly cited for this computer and Internet usage.

Museums also provide 21st century learning opportunities, while connecting communities to the culture, science, art, and events that make up humankind's history. The estimated 17,500 museums in the United States reflect the great diversity of our nation. They are large and small; urban and rural; local, national, and international; and include aquariums, arboretums, historical societies, nature centers, zoos, planetariums, art museums, and many other types of museums.

Museums contribute to the quality of life and the economic development of their home communities. They are key partners in offering hands-on, self directed learning for students of all ages. They draw tourism, which contributes to local economies.

The Museum and Library Services Act represents our national commitment to these institutions that are essential to building strong and vibrant communities. Through a relatively modest federal investment, this law helps build capacity to support and expand access to library and museum services at the state and local level.

In Rhode Island, library funding has supported improved online resources; literacy initiatives, including a summer reading program; and the provision of talking books to residents with visual impairments and disabilities. Through museum funding, the Museum of Art at the Rhode Island School of Design, the Preservation Society of Newport, and the Blithewold Mansion, Gardens, and Arboretum have all received support this past year.

The legislation we are introducing updates the law to reflect the education and workforce development role libraries have been playing, including helping the out-of-work look for jobs, equipping business owners with data to make informed business decisions, and helping young and old alike gain critical digital literacy skills--the skills that help to discern fact from fiction when using the Internet.

Our bill will also help enhance training and professional development for librarians and ensure the development of a diverse library workforce, including by authorizing the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian program, which has been previously funded through annual appropriations.

It will help build state capacity to support museums by authorizing IMLS to support state assessments of museum services and the development and implementation of state plans to improve and enhance those services. Our bill will also strengthen conservation and preservation efforts.

Additionally, it seeks to fully leverage the role of libraries and museums in supporting the learning, educational, and workforce development needs of Americans by requiring IMLS to improve coordination and collaboration with other federal agencies that

also have an interest in and responsibilities for the improvement of museum and libraries and information services.

I thank my colleagues for joining me in this endeavor and urge the Senate to take quick action to adopt this important legislation.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about a wonderful opportunity we had on October 20 in the Senate to host heroes, five young West Point graduates, who are currently recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. They came for a tour of the Capitol and for a lesson in history, and I want to thank the Senate Historian who came to the floor.

They had the opportunity to be in the Chamber and to see where the laws are created, which they, through their service and sacrifice, give us the chance to improve and defend and preserve the Constitution and make the laws of this country.

We were able, more importantly, to thank them, to thank them for their service to the Nation, and I am particularly pleased and proud because they carry on a tradition of selfless service to the Nation exemplified in the best moments of the graduates of the U.S. Military Academy. Each one was wounded while leading his troops out front, exposed to the dangers and hardships of warfare.

We had previously hosted a group of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division--again, I have a very proud association as a former company commander in that division. We hope periodically to host other wounded warriors from Walter Reed.

But among our guests was CPT Dan Berschinski. Dan is a graduate from the class of 2007 from the Military Academy. He hails from Peachtree City, GA. He served with the 5/2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team. He was injured in Afghanistan. They were operating around the Arghandab River Valley near Kandahar. He was on patrol, dismounted, when he was hit by an IED and suffered the loss of both of his legs but not the diminution of his spirit or his commitment of service to the Nation.

We were also joined by 1LT Chris Nichols, from the class of 2008. Chris is from Myersville, MD. He served with the 1st Heavy Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division. He was injured in Iraq, northeast of Baghdad, by an explosively formed penetrator IED, a very sophisticated weapons system. It injured both of his legs. He was joined by his friend, Stacey Aleksejus. We were pleased that Chris and Stacey were here. Chris is, hopefully, going to return to Active Duty.

We were also joined by 1LT Rahul Harpalani from the class of 2008. Rahul is from Carbondale, IL. He served with the 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division. He was wounded in Konar Province in Afghanistan. An IED exploded against the vehicle he was driving. Both legs were injured. We hope, again, that he will be recuperating well.

We were also joined by 1LT Josh Linvill, USMA class of 2008 from Wayne, PA. He served with the 3/2 Stryker Cavalry Regiment. He was wounded in Kandahar, Afghanistan. He stepped on a land mine, injuring his right leg.

We were joined also by 1LT Zach Osborne, class of 2008, from Roanoke, VA. He served with the 5/2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team, once again in the Arghandab River Valley of Afghanistan. An IED hit the vehicle he was riding in. Both of his legs were injured. We were pleased he was joined by his non-medical attendant, Daniel Key.

These young men have served, but their families have served also, and we wish to thank them as well. They, too, have sacrificed. In fact, all of us have been up to Walter Reed and as we have gone through the corridors, we have seen mothers and fathers in the rooms with their sons, as well as wives and husbands and children and grandparents and uncles and aunts, because the sacrifice of these young men and women has been borne by their families as well as themselves.

I also wish to thank COL Jim Wartski. Jim is from the class of 1982. He serves as a mobilized reservist at Walter Reed; he, as well as Mr. Fred Larson, the director of Care and Service Transformation. These two gentlemen escorted the wounded warriors. They also represent some of the improvements not just to the physical infrastructure of Walter Reed but to the management of Walter Reed, from the patient-centered care to the continued engagement and involvement of these young men and women, not only while they are in acute care, but also as they recuperate and rehabilitate, and that is an improvement that has been made and is so necessary.

These young men--in this case, all young combat officers--men, but young men and women who are serving and sacrificing and sustaining the wounds and, in some cases, giving their lives to this Nation are the fabric of our defense. They are what has sustained us through not just this moment but throughout our history. They continue to inspire us with their service, and they continue to represent to the world the continued promise that wherever we are challenged, we will meet that challenge.

We cannot repay them enough. We cannot thank them enough. But last month this Senate had the opportunity to say to five of these warriors: Thank you very much. Come here, see the Senate of the United States where great debates have taken place, where the rights and the responsibilities have been fashioned over more than 200 years. This is what you defend. But, more importantly, you give us the opportunity and the obligation to ensure that your sacrifice is not in vain; that we work here, as you do, as committed Americans to improve the lives of our fellow Americans, to defend their security, but also to provide opportunity, to do what is difficult and sometimes unpopular but what is necessary for the success of freedom and the success of the families of this country.

At moments in this body, we have, a sense of frustration, a sense of--let me stop at frustration. At those moments when we are divided by political issues, by policy debates, I ask us all to think for a moment of these young men and women. I think that will help immensely in our response to the challenges we face as a Senate and as a nation.

I also wish to say something else because this week in Rhode Island, we had to bury a warrior, SGT Michael Paranzino of the 10th Mountain Division. Michael left his wife and two small children, his parents, his family, his friends, and the whole community of Rhode Island. He was an extraordinary young man.

The cost of this great experiment in democracy is high indeed. We have to recognize that cost, not just in speeches on the floor of the Senate but going forward: how we conduct ourselves as Senators; what we do to make this country stronger and better; what we do to make it more a place of opportunity for all of our citizens. Particularly, it is about what we will do not in the next 2 months or the next 10 months but in the next 20 years to ensure that the veterans we honor on this

floor today will still be honored 20 years hence. We need to ensure that, not just with an annual parade and flag waving, but with the care, the support, the assistance to the VA and the Department of Defense as well as in their communities, not just these individuals but their families.

I hope years from now, and I will pray, that others will stand up and say they paid the price and we have kept our promise to them.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I recognize and congratulate EUHOFA, an international association of hotel and hospitality schools, on the occasion of its 49th Congress, which was held in Providence, RI, from November 7 through November 12, 2010.

EUHOFA International was founded in Europe in 1955 with the mission of enhancing the quality of the training for the tourism industry throughout the world. Its members represent the world's top hotel and hospitality colleges and universities in 45 countries. Representatives from 19 of these countries attended this year's congress in Providence.

The 2010 EUHOFA Congress marks only the second time this event has taken place in the United States. This year, as in 1994, the EUHOFA Congress was hosted by Johnson & Wales University in Providence, which is home to one of our Nation's premier hospitality schools.

The tourism industry is a vital part of my State and our Nation's economy. Many people associate tourism solely with vacations. But at its heart, tourism provides an important bridge between countries and cultures, and at a time of great change, this kind of understanding is essential for our national security and economic recovery.

I am very proud that Rhode Island and Johnson & Wales University are hosting this great event. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, it is my pleasure to congratulate the 49th EUHOFA International World Congress.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Graduate Medical Education Reform Act of 2010 along with my colleague Senator Whitehouse.

During my tenure in Congress, I have worked to ensure that medical schools and teaching hospitals have adequate resources to train the next generation of doctors. I have championed legislation to improve the financing of GME payments to teaching hospitals and annually spearhead efforts to increase grant funding for health professions programs through the appropriations process. In addition, the new health insurance reform law contains an entire title of workforce provisions, many of which I helped to write. The consistent goal of these efforts has been to support our future health care workforce and improve the care that patients receive. The GME Reform Act is an extension of those efforts.

The legislation challenges recent statements by some experts that Medicare overpays teaching hospitals to train medical residents by increasing federal oversight of medical residency programs. For most teaching hospitals, which incur higher costs than other hospitals, this funding is essential to support residency programs and provide high- quality patient care. In addition, now is not the time to starve these important programs of the funding necessary to train our future health care workforce since 30 million more Americans will gain access to health insurance in 2014.

First, the legislation would enhance GME payment transparency. New information about the amount of GME funding that teaching hospitals receive respective to the costs to remain operational would demonstrate that more could be done to support these important programs.

The GME Reform Act would also ensure that teaching hospitals and residency programs spend GME funding to train residents in new models of care and updated technology. Some medical residents, including those in my state, are already trained in these areas, but that is not the case in programs throughout the country. This legislation would encourage reform in every program by linking three percent of indirect medical education payments to teaching hospitals to the performance of residency programs. Medical colleges, accrediting bodies, and other stakeholders that are most familiar with how to train residents would set the specific performance measures. This new oversight would help to break down the silos in medicine and ensure that physicians work together to provide patients with comprehensive health care.

These are important and sensible reforms. As I said, many programs throughout the country have already acted in this manner. But, since it is often most effective to have a reasonable balance of oversight and incentives, this legislation would provide a bonus payment to programs that train at least one-third of all residents in primary care.

In addition, this legislation would transform the way that children's hospitals receive payments for training the future health care workforce by

taking those payments out of the discretionary appropriations process and providing mandatory, stable funding every year through a new trust fund.It would also extend residency training funds to children's psychiatric hospitals and women and infants hospitals. There are just a handful of hospitals around the country that fall in these two categories, including two in Rhode Island. Indeed, they should also have access to the resources necessary to support the training of residents.

I am pleased that the GME Reform Act is supported by the only medical school in my state, the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University.

My colleagues, Leader Reid, Senator Nelson of Florida, and Senator Schumer have also taken great interest in supporting our future health care workforce by championing legislation to increase the number of physicians trained each year. This effort is vitally important to ending the shortage of primary care providers in many areas, responding to the increased demand of a growing and aging population, and preparing for the implementation of the new health insurance reform law. I look forward to continuing to support their efforts and working with them on the GME Reform Act as well.

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

Mr. President, yesterday we were again thwarted in our attempts to take another important step in supporting our Nation's economic recovery.

in 2009, we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provided a much needed jump-start to get our economy going again, save and create jobs, and make critical investments in our infrastructure.

In March of this year, we passed the HIRE Act, which has been providing businesses with tax incentives to hire out-of-work Americans.

Just Monday, President Obama signed the Small Business Jobs Act into law, which will provide support and relief to small businesses and lay the groundwork to help these businesses create up to 500,000 jobs.

Yesterday, Republicans blocked consideration of the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act, which would have supported our Nation's manufacturing sector by encouraging American companies to bring jobs back to America. Even though we have been witnessing a growth in private sector jobs, we are still struggling to prevent the loss of good jobs.

The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act would provide a tax break to companies that bring jobs back to the United States, in the form of relief from the employer share of the Social Security payroll tax.

Additionally, this legislation would discourage firms from eliminating American jobs and moving facilities offshore by prohibiting firms from taking any deduction, loss, or credit for amounts paid to reduce operations in the United States and start or expand similar operations overseas.

It would also end the Federal tax subsidy--known as deferral that rewards firms that move their production overseas by allowing them to defer paying tax on income earned by their foreign subsidiaries until that income is brought back to the United States.

The Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act would encourage American companies to get back in the business of hiring American workers. Nonfinancial companies in the United States are reportedly sitting on $1.8 trillion of capital. With these reserves, it should not be prohibitive to bring new American workers on the payroll. This legislation would ensure that these companies are using their resources to create new American jobs instead of sending those jobs overseas.

I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle failed to join with us to support this commonsense legislation, which would provide desperately needed jobs to out-of-work Americans and support America's manufacturing sector. Instead, they have voted to preserve tax breaks that reward companies who ship jobs overseas.

I am also disappointed that we have failed to extend the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund, which is set to expire on Thursday. I joined with a number of my colleagues to introduce and press for legislation to extend the fund for 3 months.

The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund has been used to support the successful Jobs Now program in Rhode Island, which has provided local businesses with subsidies to hire workers from struggling families. In addition to providing jobs to out-of-work Americans, this program is a win for businesses that could not otherwise bring new workers on board. Without this fund, these businesses will be hard-pressed to keep these new employees on the payroll. Unfortunately, in outcome that has become all too common, this extension was subject to an objection from the other side of the aisle.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will recognize what is at stake and join us in the effort to give American workers and businesses the help they need. I remain committed to pressing for innovative and commonsense efforts that will bolster the economy, create jobs, and help the middle class.