Floor Statements

Mr. President, this afternoon at Arlington National Cemetery, this Nation laid to rest a great American, a great patriot, an extraordinary Senator, Ted Stevens.

I had the privilege of serving with Senator Stevens for 13 years. In that time, he impressed not only myself but everyone with his deep commitment to his State of Alaska, to the Nation and, in particular, to the men and women of the Armed Forces.

Ted Stevens began his commitment to service above self at the age of 19, when he joined the U.S. Army Air Corps. He became a pilot and at age 20 received his wings. Then he was deployed to the China-Burma- India theater, where he undertook some of the most dangerous missions any pilot had to face in World War II. He flew over the Hump. He flew supplies to Chinese nationalist forces, and he would frequently fly behind enemy lines to deliver his precious cargo and to keep that fight going. They would fly at night, and they would have to muffle the flights--their engines--to avoid detection by the Japanese. They would land and camouflage the planes, because they were in enemy territory, and then they would take another dangerous flight out in the evening-- to return again and again. That kind of sacrifice and service and courage is remarkable.

Also, typical of Ted Stevens, it was not something he boasted and bragged about a lot. He just did it. That was one of the great strengths of Ted Stevens. He just did things he thought were right.

When he returned to the United States, he attended college. He went off to Harvard Law School and became a lawyer. Although he had midwestern roots, he saw his future in the great State of Alaska. He packed up and went to Alaska, and Alaska changed him, but I suspect he changed Alaska more. One of the things I believe he felt very strongly about, having seen the great effort of World War II, having seen citizens come together from across this land from different communities, different ethnicities and races, to forge a unified effort to do a great thing, he was convinced that government could make a positive and important contribution to the life of his community in Alaska. He worked very hard. He worked hard to build roads, to build bridges, to literally bring together the people of Alaska. He supported consistently and enthusiastically the military forces--not just there but across the globe. He too served, and he knew what these men and women were doing and how important it was.

Something also struck me, too, while I was at the services today. A gentlemen from New England came up to me and said, ``Hi, Senator.'' I wondered why he would be there. He was involved in the fishing industry in New England, and he appreciated what Senator Ted Stevens did for the fishing industry in Alaska, because he extended some of the same help to us in the Northeast. That was another thing about him. If he thought it was important enough for his constituents, he equally felt it

was important for all people. He helped all of our constituents, and he would do it in a positive way.

I always found Ted Stevens to be somebody who was clear on where he stood. If he was with you, you didn't have to worry. If he was against you, you should worry. But he was consistent and honest. He represented the values we all appreciate--candor, honesty, and decency.

Today, America has laid to rest a great patriot. To his family, our deepest condolences. But what he has done--and not just for the people of Alaska but for all of us--has left an example of patriotism, of diligence, of hard work, and of commitment to this Senate, which will sustain and inspire us in the difficult days ahead. For that, I thank him.

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

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

Mr. President, today the Senate passed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010. I was pleased to have been involved in the crafting of this bill, which is the product of months of bipartisan discussions, collaboration, and negotiation. I also want to recognize the hard work and dedication of Senators Dodd, Hatch, Burr, and Ensign in getting this bill across the finish line in the Senate.

This bill offers promise to the tens of thousands of individuals diagnosed with leukemia and lymphomas, sickle cell anemia, and rare genetic blood disorders.

It will reauthorize the C.W. Bill Young National Marrow Donor Program, which has been helping to connect individuals in need of a bone marrow transplant with donors since 1986, and the National Cord Blood Inventory, which has been helping to connect individuals in need of an umbilical cord blood transplant with donors since 1999.

I am particularly pleased that the bill will remove a cap on the number of cord blood units that could be stored by qualified cord blood banks in the National Cord Blood Inventory. The original law limited the number to 150,000 units. As the science has evolved, we know that 150,000 is nowhere near the amount necessary to meet the demands of those in need of a cord blood transplant. And, in eliminating this cap, I am pleased that we have included provisions to encourage greater cord blood donation and collection as well as provisions to help shed light onto the obstacles to greater donation and collection.

I am proud that the Rhode Island Blood Center has contributed to the success of the National Marrow Donor Program with over 61,000 registered marrow donors. In addition, last year a new partnership formed between the Rhode Island Blood Bank and Women and Infants Hospital in Providence, RI, to begin collecting umbilical cord blood units as part of a pilot project. Over 1,000 units have already been collected, and I look forward to the time when Rhode Island will be contributing to the National Cord Blood Inventory.

The public registries made up of Rhode Island donors and those from all over the country have been a true lifeline for the Americans who have found an unrelated match. By strengthening and enhancing the important programs operating these registries, many more

Americans will be afforded the opportunity to find a match if they are ever in need.

I look forward to swift passage of this legislation in the House of Representatives and the President signing this bill into law shortly thereafter.

Mr. President, we are at a critical juncture in proceeding to the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill is routinely taken up every year. I want to emphasize again, we are at the first step. This is just a motion to go forward to begin to debate the bill. I would hope we could at least summon sufficient votes to agree to talk about these critical issues.

This legislation contains important programs for our military. We have a military that is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. They need equipment, and they need support. We have included changes for the quality of life of their families. One change, significantly, is to make the TRICARE system comparable to the new health care system by allowing children who are up to 26 years old to stay on their parents' policies.

There are some controversial provisions and proposals. One is don't ask, don't tell. The other is the DREAM Act. First, the minority or anyone has the right to move an amendment to take out or change provisions with respect to don't ask, don't tell. I would disagree with that and oppose that, but that is something that can and will happen and will engender a very strong, positive debate. The other issue is the DREAM Act. I think that has a significant connection to this bill because that is one of the ways in which a youngster who came to the United States--not by his or her choice but because of a family choice--under 16 years of age who later joins the military, and who serves honorably, can be put on a path to eventually become a citizen. That has a strong nexus to this bill. But that issue has to be proposed on this legislation and voted for by a majority of Members.

So we are here simply to begin an important debate and discussion to support our men and women in uniform across the globe, and their families. To deny at least the initiation of such a debate seems to be exactly contrary to why we should be here, which is to support our military, to debate difficult issues, and then to take votes up and down to decide the policy of the United States.

With that, I urge all my colleagues to support this motion to proceed to the bill.

Mr. President, I yield any remaining time I have back to the chairman of the committee.

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

Madam President, we have been debating for weeks now a needed solution to our economic recovery in the United States. We have seen some progress, but it is a long and difficult journey for American families. The depth of the crisis that materialized in the last few years of the Bush administration can't be overcome in just 18 months, although I believe we are headed in the right direction. The legislation we are considering will help us in that journey to recovery.

We have seen, in fact, over the last several months, an increase in private sector jobs. We didn't see that in the last several years of the Bush administration. When President Obama took office, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month and we had 22 straight months of job losses. Now we need to turn that dynamic around by creating private sector jobs, but we have to do much more.

The great engine of private job creation is small business in America. These provisions are aimed to aid small businesses throughout the country. Small business is an engine of growth. It is the place where people will, I think, find employment as we go forward. Our small business community has been hit very hard by the economic crisis, the financial crisis, and the collapse of the credit bubble. Small businesses have lost more than 6 million jobs since December 2007, and we have to start restoring those jobs.

The legislation we are considering--the Small Business Jobs Act--will provide $12 billion in fully paid-for tax breaks for small businesses to bolster confidence in the economy by unlocking frozen credit markets, spurring job creation, and fostering our Nation's burgeoning recovery. These tax incentives will allow small businesses to make investments to help with job growth, purchases, and expansion. I emphasize that these are fully paid for because we have multiple challenges.

I have served long enough to recall in 2000, when we were looking at strong employment growth and a Federal budget surplus, and, in 2009, when President Obama took office, we were looking at a job collapse in many parts of the country and a huge deficit, which is still going on. So we have to consider both as we move forward.

The particulars of this legislation are important to note because they will contribute, I believe, very significantly--and one would hope very quickly--to increased job opportunities throughout the country. The legislation will incentivize investors by giving 100 percent exclusion from capital gains taxes on small business investments. It will create a targeted $30 billion small business lending fund to provide small community banks with the capital to increase their ability to lend to small businesses. This is particularly notable. I must commend Senator Landrieu for her tenacious advocacy of this position, along with Senator Merkley and others. In fact, this is a bipartisan effort. This proposal will put money in the hands of small community banks that want to lend, that have clients, and that do it the old-fashioned way. They look at the books, they know the borrower, they have faith and confidence in that individual, and they are constrained now because they do not have sufficient capital to expand their lending. With this capital, they will be able to expand lending and go right out to the heart of small businesses throughout the country. Madam President, just as in North Carolina, in Rhode Island I have numerous businesses that will come in and say they are very successful, they want to expand, they can hire a few people, but they just can't get the loan from the bank. This will help.

Another provision reduces the tax burden of small businesses by allowing them to carry back general business tax credits to offset their tax burdens from the previous 5 years. Small businesses will also be able to count the general business credits against the Alternative Minimum Tax. That will free up capital for expansion and job growth.

The legislation also increases Section 179 expensing--permitting up to $500,000 in capital investments that businesses can expense to immediately get some tax credit for it. It also extends bonus depreciation, allowing taxpayers to immediately write off 50 percent of the cost of new equipment. We hope that this will have the small businessman or woman buying a piece of equipment which will require, we hope, a manufacturer or assembler somewhere in the United States to call people back to work to meet this new demand.

This is going to increase demand for goods and services, and that is one of the key deficiencies in this current economy. We have a lot of money locked up. It is said, quite authoritatively, that there is about $2 trillion on the balance sheets of corporations throughout the United States that they are not spending. We hope these incentives will produce increased demand which will get them to start spending and provide the kind of private capital investment and momentum that will carry us forward.

As I mentioned before, this Small Business Jobs Act has a $30 billion lending fund that is so critical. More than 10 community banks in Rhode Island, for example, are eligible to receive these funds. I have spoken to many of the bank leaders and they are ready to lend right now. They have customers whom they have great faith in, who have a good business plan and are profitable. In fact, many times business owners are willing to guarantee or to put up even personal collateral to get the loan. Yet the bank says: We can't do that because we have reached the limit based on our capital of what we can lend to small business. This raises those limits, and it is absolutely necessary to do that.

One other important aspect is that this legislation will raise the limits on loans that the Small Business Administration can make and guarantee. Again, another source of tremendous and important funding is being capped now because they can't make big enough loans because there are certain loan limits. It will also extend the elimination of the fees borrowers pay to the SBA. Now we have businesses that may be ready to hire, but they just can't generate the cash to pay the fees. Now they will be able to get the loan, hire the workers, and move forward.

The legislation also supports States because there are many State initiatives. There is $1.5 billion in grants to

States that will help in their efforts. There are many States that have programs very much like our Small Business Administration at the Federal level--innovative programs that will be supported.

This legislation has bipartisan support, and that is absolutely necessary. Again, I wish to thank particularly my colleagues who were supportive of the cloture motion that has us now on a path to passage. I thank them very much for their efforts. They made a decision that will benefit American business across the country, small businesses in particular.

We need to move forward. We need to get this legislation done--I hope this week--as soon as we can. Then we have other legislation we can and should consider. For example, we have a tax extenders bill that will hopefully provide R&D tax credits and other provisions that will help businesses, both large and small but particularly small business.

I urge all my colleagues, now that we feel confident we have the votes, let's move to final passage. Let's give American businesses, particularly small businesses, the help they need to move the economy forward.

I yield the floor.

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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are debating the President's nomination to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens, who has served this country admirably and with great distinction. I rise in wholehearted support of Solicitor General Elena Kagan's nomination to be our next Supreme Court Justice. She has had an illustrious legal career that includes clerking for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Justice Thurgood Marshall on the U.S. Supreme Court; obtaining tenure at two of the top law schools in the country, the University of Chicago and Harvard; serving as an associate counsel in the Clinton administration; becoming Dean of Harvard Law School; and now serving as Solicitor General of the United States. Casting a vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court is one of the most consequential votes we face as Senators because no court can review the decisions of the Supreme Court. They are the ultimate arbiters of the law and the Constitution in this country.

The Constitution includes the Senate as an active partner, along with the President, in this process of confirming Justices to the Supreme Court. As stated in article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, nominees to the Supreme Court shall only be confirmed ``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.'' This confirmation process and the Senate's role in it serves as a vital democratic check on America's judiciary, particularly in a case where a Supreme Court Justice will serve for a life term.

Indeed, one of the Senate's greatest opportunities and responsibilities to support and defend the Constitution of the United States is achieved through upholding our duty as Senators to give advice and consent on the nominations of the President to the Federal bench.

As I have stated before, my test for a nominee is simple and is drawn from the text, the history, and the principles of the Constitution. A nominee's intellectual gifts, experience, judgment, maturity, and temperament are all important, but these alone are not enough. I need to be convinced that a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court will live up to both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. The nominee needs to be committed not only to enforcing laws, but also to doing justice.

The nominee needs to be able to make the principles of the Constitution come alive--equality before the law, due process, full and equal participation in the civic and social life of America for all Americans; freedom of conscience, individual responsibility, and the expansion of opportunity. The nominee also needs to see the unique role the Court plays in helping balance the often conflicting forces in a democracy between individual autonomy and the obligations of community, between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority. A nominee for the Supreme Court needs to be able to look forward to the future not just backwards. The nominee needs to make the Constitution resonate in a world that is changing with great rapidity.

Elena Kagan passes this test. She is extraordinarily qualified on the basis of her intellectual gifts. But what is most striking about Solicitor General Kagan, in both her academic work and her life work, is her commitment to the Constitution.

In a speech she gave in October 2007 at my alma mater, West Point, well before she was considered for Solicitor General or for the Supreme Court, she stated that our Nation is most extraordinary because we, in her words, ``live in a government of laws, not of men or women.'' She used as a touchstone for her speech a place on the West Point campus called Constitution Corner, which was a gift from the West Point class of 1943, who not only served our Nation but defended the Constitution through the rigors of World War II and beyond.

There are five plaques at this sight. One of the plaques is titled ``Loyalty to the Constitution,'' one of the principal tenets by which every professional soldier must abide. It basically states what those who serve in the military are keenly aware of and points to the fact that the United States broke with an ancient tradition when it was created. Instead of swearing loyalty to a military leader, the American military swears loyalty to the Constitution. Interestingly enough, although Elena Kagan never wore the uniform of the United States, she has demonstrated this same loyalty to the Constitution throughout her life.

I am confident she will continue to uphold and defend our Constitution as she assumes her next role as a Justice of the Supreme Court. During her confirmation hearings, on the role of a judge, she said:

As a judge, you are on nobody's team. As a judge, you are

an independent actor, and your job is simply to evaluate the

law and evaluate the facts and apply one to the other as

best, as prudently and wisely as you can. You know, the

greatness of our judicial system lies in its independence,

and that means when you are on the bench, when you put on the

robe, your only master is the rule of law.

Supreme Court Justices matter, and their impact on the lives of Americans from all walks of life can be profound. We only need to look at a couple of the recent Supreme Court decisions to understand how profound that impact can be.

More than four decades ago, Congress passed laws to protect women and others against workplace discrimination. However, five Justices in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire gave immunity to employers who secretly discriminate against their workers. Thankfully, we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which I cosponsored and President Obama signed into law, to ensure equal pay for equal work and to effectively and properly overturn this immunity granted by these five Justices.

This year, five Justices in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission favored big corporations by ignoring precedent to bestow upon corporations the same power as any individual citizen to influence elections--in fact, some might argue much greater power through much greater spending. In his dissent, Justice Stevens, who is retiring and who will, I hope, be replaced by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, warned that the ``Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.''

On this point, the words of Lilly Ledbetter are particularly relevant. The plaintiff in the famous case said:

We need Justices who understand that law must serve regular

people who are just trying to work hard, do right, and make a

good life for their families . . . This isn't a game. Real

people's lives are at stake. We need Supreme Court Justices

who understand that.

Elena Kagan understands this point, and she will bring this understanding to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition, I am confident that Solicitor General Kagan's tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School will serve her well as she works with her colleagues on the Court. As Dean, she drew acclaim as a pragmatic problem solver who could bridge ideological divides among the faculty. Indeed, her success in leading and bringing together one of the most contentious legal faculties in the Nation is a testament to her interpersonal, oratory, and analytical skills--all of her skills. As someone who had the privilege of graduating from Harvard Law School, I can indeed confirm that it is one of the most intellectually contentious places in the country, as it should be, because it is there where the ideas of law, of Constitution, and of our relationships with one another in this democracy, are vigorously debated.

The fact that she has garnered wide bipartisan support is further evidence of her great standing. She has received the endorsement of eight former Solicitors General from both parties, including Ken Starr and Ted Olson; 54 former Deputy and Assistant Solicitors General of both parties; 69 law school deans; and more than 850 law school professors from across the country and across the political spectrum.

Just to give an example of how well regarded she is, here is what Professor Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration, had to say:

[Elena] Kagan possesses an extraordinary knowledge of the

legal issues before the Supreme Court. Whatever else may be

said about being a law professor, it is the profession that

requires one to know legal subjects comprehensively enough to

teach them . . . What I do know is that Kagan will be open-

minded and tough minded; that she will treat all advocates

fairly and will press them all about the weak points in their

arguments; that she will be independent and highly

analytical; and that she will seek to render decisions that

reflect fidelity to the Constitution and the laws.

Clearly, she is not only well qualified, but she also has wide bipartisan support.

Before I conclude, I wish to make one final point regarding Elena Kagan's respect and admiration for the military. She has won praise from students who have served our country in uniform for creating a highly supportive environment for students who served in the Armed Forces of the United States and who were attending Harvard Law School. In my view, her respect and admiration for the military is sincere and proven.

America's courtrooms are staffed with judges not machines because justice requires human judgments. This is particularly so on the Supreme Court. Of all the hundreds of thousands of cases filed in American Federal courts each year, only a small percentage reach the Supreme Court. These are the hardest of cases--cases that have divided the country's lower courts. These are cases where one constitutional clause may be in conflict with another, where one statute may influence the interpretation of another, and where one core national value may interfere with another. These cases often divide the Justices of the Court by close margins.

Surely, the Justices on both sides of a 5-to-4 case can claim to be following the judicial process and respecting the precedents of the Court. What divides their opinions is the set of constitutional values they bring to the case. Elena Kagan, in my view, brings the set of constitutional values that, to quote the words of Lilly Ledbetter again, will make her a Supreme Court Justice ``who understand[s] that law must serve regular people who are just trying to work hard, do right, and make a good life for their families.'' As Elena Kagan herself put it, she will do her ``best to consider every case impartially, modestly, with commitment to principle and in accordance with the law.''

It is with great pleasure that I support the nomination of Elena Kagan to the highest Court in the land, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Rhode Island who, with eloquence and passion, has clearly highlighted a disturbing phenomenon taking place in this Chamber. Well-qualified individuals who have received the support of the Judiciary Committee--in many cases, unanimous support--are being denied a final confirmation vote by the full Chamber. This is a break from our history. At the end of the first Congress, during President Reagan's first term, 88 Circuit and District Court nominees were confirmed. At the end of the first Congress during President George H.W. Bush's term, 72 Circuit and District Court nominees were confirmed. At the end of the first Congress under President Clinton, 126 Circuit and District Court nominees were confirmed. At the end of the first Congress during President George W. Bush's first term, 100 Circuit and District Court nominees were confirmed. As of now, if nothing else is done, President Obama, at the end of this Congress, will have only 36 Circuit and District Court nominees confirmed by the Senate, in contrast to 88 for President Reagan, 72 for President George H.W. Bush, 126 for President Clinton, and 100 for George W. Bush.

Something is going on here. What is going on is a deliberate attempt by the minority to frustrate the traditions and precedents of the Senate where, as Senator Whitehouse suggested, there is a long-held view that Senators have more insight into the skills, ability, and integrity of nominees from the Senators' home State than national special interest groups, whose major goal seems to be the generation of controversy for the purposes of contributions.

We in Rhode Island have an extraordinarily competent and capable individual. As Senator Whitehouse indicated, Jack McConnell is an accomplished attorney. He is a plaintiff's lawyer. He takes cases of individual Americans, who have been harmed, and he fights the good fight for them. He has been very successful doing it. He has received the bipartisan support of members of the bar, judges of both political parties, and the Providence Journal, our major Statewide newspaper, which has a reputation of being very sensitive to the legitimate concerns and needs of our business community. He is supported because he is an outstanding attorney and because he is an outstanding individual. He is someone who knows the law and knows the court. I am always kind of interested when someone who has spent a long time as a corporate counsel for a big corporation is suddenly--and in most cases--very quickly confirmed as a District Court Judge, even though that individual may or may not have had a lot of experience in a trial court. Here, we have an individual who actually has spent his life in trial court, both Federal and State courts.

Jack McConnell is a fair and good man, and he understands that a judge must hear the facts, apply the law, and indicate clearly to all plaintiffs and defendants who come before the court that there is no bias and that the case will be decided fairly on the merits within the bounds of the law. That is something all of my colleagues in Rhode Island, Republicans and Democrats alike, recognize that Jack McConnell will do.

There is something else about this individual. He is an extraordinarily decent person. That counts for something too. There is no one in our State who is more generous, not only with his money, but with his time. There is no one in our State who is more committed to helping people, not to gain notoriety, but because it is the right thing to do. Those qualities are important. Ultimately, I believe one of the major criteria that should be met by a Judge is that when someone goes before the court, whether it is a big corporation or a person who has been harmed, they know they will be treated fairly. Frankly, Jack McConnell passed that test with flying colors. As Senator Whitehouse pointed out, he passed the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote. I thank Senator Lindsey Graham, who has used his experience as a lawyer fighting for individuals as well as corporations. He was able to recognize these talents, these skills, and these qualities in Jack McConnell and support him. I appreciate that. But we are here now in a situation where not only Jack McConnell, but 21 other nominees are pending. We have to do more. We have to get them to a vote here in the Senate, and I will insist upon that vote as best I can.

Again, the numbers don't lie. They suggest there is something going on here, something that was not at work during the Reagan administration, the George H.W. Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and the George W. Bush administration, regardless of which party was in the majority or the minority. Particularly, when it came to District Court Judges, if they had cleared the Judiciary Committee, if they had the support of the two Senators from the home State, there would be at least an opportunity, an obligation, to bring their nomination to a vote and let the Senate, as a whole, decide.

I urge that we return to what has been a dependable practice, one the Senate has embraced for good reasons, that we let these gentlemen and ladies come to the floor for a vote, and that we vote.

That is all we ask. I think if that is agreed to, it will provide for not only the disposition of these nominations, but it will continue a tradition of thoughtful, appropriate practice by this Senate.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last Friday, this Chamber played host to heroes: seven wounded warriors from the 82nd Airborne Division, who are currently recuperating at Walter Reed Army Hospital. They came down for a tour of the Capitol, and for moments here on the floor of the Senate, in which they were able to see their government in action.

More important, we were able to thank them for their extraordinary service and sacrifice to the Nation. I am particularly proud because they are soldiers from my division--the 82nd Airborne Division.

We had among our guests SGT Steven Dandoy, who was wounded last month in a mortar attack in Afghanistan, of the third battalion 321st Field Artillery, whose hometown is Milwaukee, WI; SGT Allen Thomas, who is from Adelphi, MD, and serves with the 2-508 Parachute Infantry Regiment, who was wounded in Afghanistan this past March during an attack from a suicide bomber, and he was joined by his fiancee, Donna; SPC Antonio Brown, from Florence, SC.

We were honored to have SPC Antonio Brown from Florence, SC. He was wounded in Iraq in 2007 when a 50-caliber round detonated in his hand. He was serving with the 2nd Battalion of the 325th Parachute Infantry Regiment.

SPC John Doherty of Jerome, ID, was wounded when a 50-caliber round detonated in his hand in April while he was serving with the 2nd Battalion of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment. Amazingly, he recently passed his flight physical with the goal of qualifying as an Army helicopter pilot despite his wound.

SPC Jeffrey McKnight of the 1st Battalion of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment and hailing from Littleton, CO, was also our guest. He was wounded last month during a vehicle rollover in Afghanistan.

SPC William Ross also serves with the 2nd Battalion of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment. He was our guest also. Specialist Ross hails from Knoxville, TN. He is recovering from a gunshot wound he received during a dismounted patrol in March. He was joined by his fiancee Tiffany.

SPC Nicholas Stone of the 2nd Battalion of the 508th Parachute Infantry Regiment was also our guest. He hails from Buffalo, NY. He is recovering from wounds suffered in an IED attack on a dismounted patrol in May. He was joined by his wife Kristen.

Let me also say it is appropriate to recognize the families of these wounded warriors because they, too, serve. They, too, sacrifice. In fact, during the long hours of rehabilitation and therapy at Walter Reed, they are at the bedside literally of their wounded soldiers. I thank them.

I also thank SFC Albert Comfort and SSG Rodolfo Nunez from the 82nd Airborne Division. They are the Division Liaisons for the wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

These young men left the comfort and safety of their homes all across this country to serve this Nation. Their service, their sacrifice sustains us. They are the fabric of our defense. They are those young men and women who serve in great danger but with unfailing fidelity to the Army and to the Nation. Because of them, we are able to oppose those who seek us harm.

We can never repay them enough. We can never thank them enough. But last Friday we had seven of these wounded warriors down just to say: Thank you, well done, and to give them a chance to look at the Senate and see the history that was made by their predecessors, and which they are sustaining and will make in the future.

It was a special moment for me because these soldiers come from the 82nd Airborne Division. One of the great privileges of my life--in fact, I believe this is one of the greatest privileges an American can have--was leading American soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division as the company commander of Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion of the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. I learned a lot about service, sacrifice, and the contribution of Americans from across this globe, as well as the great potential of Americans, not only to defend our Nation but to do great things, furthering the goals and ideals of this country.

I conclude by saying to these young soldiers: Thank you very much for your service. Good luck. Godspeed.

I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from New York.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Starz, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 111th Congress.

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

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate voted for cloture on the unemployment insurance extension bill. Unfortunately, we are still delaying and deferring the final vote on this measure. This is essential to millions of Americans who need the money they receive-- which, frankly, it is not a huge amount. In Rhode Island, the average weekly unemployment compensation is $360 a week. But they need to have some certainty that this program is going to be there at least for the next several months.

We have made a lot of points rhetorically. Now it is time to take the final vote, to move forward, and to deal with a more fundamental issue; that is, how to create the jobs--now that we are providing some assistance to those who are unemployed. How do we go ahead and further create jobs in this economy so our unemployment rolls shrink?

That task is challenging. We have taken 2 months now to get to this juncture. In the past, extending unemployment compensation was a bipartisan initiative. It was done routinely and repeatedly. It was always extended as long as the unemployment rate was at least 7.4 percent. Today the unemployment rate nationally is 9.5 percent. In my State of Rhode Island it is 12 percent. We are not alone. There are many States that are very much mired in a huge economic crisis.

The other factor of this unemployment situation is that it has been a long-term unemployment for so many people, nearly half of those unemployed. So the money they put aside, the rainy day money, the money they put in the coffee can for that special occasion or that special treat, has long been exhausted. This unemployment compensation is absolutely essential for people.

There are many on the other side who will stand and say: We are all for unemployment compensation; we just want to pay for it. Well, historically, we have not paid for it. It is truly an emergency expenditure.

The other factor that is critical to notice is that unemployment compensation does not add to the structural deficit. That is in sharp contrast to the tax cuts, which my colleagues on the other side are urging be extended without paying for them, and in sharp contrast to the largest expansion of an entitlement program since the 1960s, the Medicare Part D Program, which was not paid for. Those programs do add to the structural deficit because they are not replenished periodically in the good times because people qualify for them as soon as they hit an age--65--or as soon as they qualify by filing their income taxes. Those are structural deficit issues. Yet the other side says that is not important. I can't figure that out.

If the deficit is so overwhelming, so all-consuming, then why are my colleagues on the Republican side, first, suggesting we extend all the tax cuts of the Bush years without any offsets; and why did they, in the past, vote for the creation of Medicare Part D, really? Why did they vote for 2 wars that were unpaid for? There is something inconsistent in that.

As I pointed out, unemployment compensation is not a problem of structural deficit because, as the economy recovers, people will continue to pay into the unemployment compensation trust fund through payroll taxes. In good times those funds increase so that in the unfortunate times we can provide assistance.

What we are doing now with this legislation is recognizing that this is a particularly challenging moment for families and for States, and they need further assistance. Part of the legislation we have is fully compensating the States for the Extended Benefits program, which, in other times, are shared 50 percent by the States and 50 percent by the Federal Government. In these extraordinary times, we have to pass this legislation.

We also recognize, too, in terms of the offsets of the legislation, that this is part of our overall attempt to stimulate the economy. For every dollar of unemployment benefits, there is at least $1.60 or $1.90 in economic activity. It makes sense. When they get that $360 a week, they take whatever resources they have and they go to the store. They don't go off jetting to Europe on a vacation. They go to the store and buy food, clothes, and those things that are essential to their families.

Mr. President, I am continually baffled by the reluctance, the resistance, and the obstruction of the other side in terms of doing what has to be done, and done promptly. It will be done in a way in which it will assist the recovery that we are beginning to sense throughout the country.

I note the arrival of my colleague, the junior Senator from Rhode Island. I think he is about to take the floor.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are seeing over the last 12 months a slow recovery in our job market. In the last 6 months, we have seen that accelerate but not sufficiently to reduce unemployment to anything comparable to a full employment economy. This year, so far, however, we have generated 600,000 jobs in the private sector. That is in sharp contrast to January of 2009 when President Obama took office and when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. But despite this improvement in the job market, we have a long way to go.

It is particularly troubling to be, once again, anticipating the vote tomorrow on the extension of unemployment benefits. These benefits lapsed

weeks ago. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are without access to unemployment funds--the insurance funds they paid each week out of their daily wages for the time they hoped would never come but has come--that they could rely upon for some support as they look for work.

In Rhode Island, the unemployment rate is 12 percent--absolutely horrendous. We are seeing more and more of this unemployment being long term, not a temporary situation. Nearly half--45.5 percent--of those unemployed have been out of work for more than 6 months, and in those 6 months, the excess savings one might have, the ability to cut a few corners to make it week by week, are less and less effective in simply keeping the lights on and keeping the family together. Then when you take away the unemployment compensation, people are, frankly, becoming desperate.

Yet many on the other side are completely indifferent to this. They say it is not their problem. Well, it is their problem. It is our problem. If we cannot do this, then we are failing in a basic function which is to provide support for Americans in crisis, and that is what we must do. People are looking for work. The average individual has been looking for work for 35 weeks. That is almost a year, or a big part of a year. Yet, in the midst of this economic downturn--with 14.6 million unemployed Americans--my colleagues on the other side have forced us to go through procedural hoops to get a vote on an unemployment compensation extension.

The Senate has failed on three occasions to pass this extension. It is not because there is not a majority of Senators who want to, but because procedurally, we need 60 votes to end debate and vote on the measure. We have let this program lapse for short periods and now it has been lapsed since June 2, and that is unacceptable. There is no other word for it other than obstruction--stopping something that has been done routinely on a bipartisan basis in every major job recession in this country in our lifetime. This should be a simple bipartisan endeavor.

George W. Bush had a period of time where we had a recession in the job market and we, on a bipartisan basis, extended unemployment insurance. There were no repeated delays, stretching it out, only 2- month extensions or 3-month extensions to be considered. It was done because we had to help Americans who needed the help and who had contributed to the fund through their unemployment compensation insurance. We have never failed to extend unemployment compensation while the unemployment rate was at least 7.4 percent. Today, if your State has 7.4 percent, you are in recovery. You are in great shape. We have 12 percent in Rhode Island. If I go around the country, there are too many States such as Rhode Island, with 10, 11, 12 percent unemployment. The national unemployment rate is 9.5 percent. So this is an historical anomaly. We have routinely, on a bipartisan basis, extended unemployment compensation as long as the unemployment rate has been at least 7.4 percent. But now, in the midst of a much worse national economic crisis, most of my colleagues are simply indifferent to it. I am hopeful tomorrow we will rally at least two who recognize the need to respond to the needs of their constituents.

We have extended it for much longer periods of time than the current period. In the 1970s, under Presidents Ford and Carter--again, through two Presidents, one Republican, one Democrat--3 years and 1 month of extended unemployment benefits. In the 1980s under President Reagan, yes, we extended unemployment compensation benefits without paying for it under Ronald Reagan on a bipartisan basis to help Americans for 2 years and 10 months. In the 1990s, under President Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush and President Clinton, 2 years and 6 months. So we are hardly at the point where these benefits have gone on so long that they are intolerable.

Again, routinely we have done this on a bipartisan basis, Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, Republican Congresses, Democratic Congresses. What I would argue has changed is our colleagues on the other side. Now we are going through another procedural vote and at the end of the day, on the final merits, this could pass by 75, 80, 90 votes, because no one wants to be accused of not extending unemployment benefits. But this whole procedural strategy of delay after delay after delay effectively has denied millions of people not just the dollars, which are important, but the small sense of security that they can rely on these funds, that there is someplace they can get help. In Rhode Island, the average weekly benefit is $360. They can get roughly $360 a week to feed their family, to provide for the essentials in life. When that is stripped away, they lose more than just $360; they lose the sense that there is anything out there that is going to help.

Beyond this procedural delay, some of my colleagues are arguing: Well, the reason we don't want to give unemployment compensation is it is a disincentive to work. I say $360 a week is not a disincentive for people to work who have worked all of their lives, making much more than that, who are desperate to work. The reality is that for every worker unemployed today who is out there looking around, there are not the jobs. In fact, there are five unemployed workers for every available job. This is not a situation where they are sort of sifting through and saying, Well, I don't like that work; that is too far for me to go. Talk to your neighbors, as we all do. They will take almost anything to get back in the workforce, and just to make more than, in Rhode Island, $360 a week. So that argument is disingenuous, but it has been raised here as if it is the gospel. It is not.

We are in a deep economic crisis. Most of it is the result of policies that my colleagues enthusiastically supported: deep tax cuts to benefit, because of the nature of the income tax, the wealthiest Americans; more than low-income Americans. Two wars unfunded. In fact, I think this is probably the first time in the history of this country where we cut taxes in a time of war rather than trying to pay for these wars. The largest expansion of an entitlement program--Medicare Part D--in the history of the country since the 1960s, unpaid for. I could go on and on and on. That has led to a myriad of other policies--lax regulation; inattention to the lack of innovation in our country; the looking on as other countries such as China and others have taken bold steps in terms of infrastructure construction; the development of new technologies, including alternate energy and high-speed electric rail transportation--the Bush administration sort of casually tended to ignore it.

I don't think anything indicates clearly the priorities of that side and this side. We have been struggling for months to try to pass an extension of unemployment compensation, but being told we have to pay for it. In the same breath, our colleagues say, But we have to extend the Bush tax cuts, including the estate tax cuts, without paying for them. We can't help people struggling to find work with $360 a week, but we can help multibillionaires with their estate taxes. I would argue that if you want to invest in productivity in America, help working people get jobs and work, and they will pay their taxes, they will work hard, they will contribute to the community.

Now we have to deal with the deficit, but the notion that the $34 billion we are talking about today in unemployment compensation is going to rank with the $3.28 trillion that these Bush tax extensions will cost the country it is not even apples and oranges. Literally and ideologically we can't pay for tax cuts, yet the deficit is the most important problem we face. It doesn't make sense, and it particularly doesn't make sense to Americans who are out there desperately looking for work.

Again, when you look at where this deficit came from, I remember in the 1990s when we stood up as Democrats without any Republican help and passed an economic program that resulted in not only deficit reduction but a $236 billion surplus. It resulted in not only economic growth but strong employment growth through the nineties.

When President George W. Bush took office, he was looking at a significant projected surplus. He was looking at solid employment numbers and a growing, expanding economy. In the 8 years he was in office, he took that surplus and not only turned it into a deficit, but he increased the national debt more in 8 years than had been done in

the previous history of the country. Then, again, to have my colleagues on the other side suddenly discover that deficits are important--it wasn't important enough for them in the nineties to stand with us and vote to reduce the deficit, balance the budget, and raise the surplus. It wasn't important enough for them in the Bush administration, which adopted programs and policies to undercut that fiscal stability and put us into a precipitous economic collapse--and now it is important.

It is important, but when we talk about this issue of unemployment compensation, it is central to this debate. Robert Bixby, president of the Concord Coalition, which has been, throughout the years, one of the most consistent in terms of fiscal responsibility, put it well when he said:

As a deficit hawk, I wouldn't worry about extending

unemployment benefits. It is not going to add to the long-

term structural deficit, and it does address a serious need.

I just feel like unemployment benefits wandered onto the

wrong street corner at the wrong time, and now they are

getting mugged.

That is what is going on. They are mugging a program the American people need. It is close at hand. It can invoke this notion of responsible deficit reduction. Where was all this responsible deficit reduction talk when they were proposing Medicare Part D, which is a huge benefit to the pharmaceutical industry--without any payments, a lot of expensive entitlement, which adds to the structural deficit, because year in and year out, when you get to be 65 years old, you qualify for Part D.

Unemployment benefits are countercyclical--people pay into it, it builds up the trust funds in the States, and then when you meet a point at which you need it, it should be there. It should be there now.

The other point that is important to make is, for every dollar of unemployment benefits there is $1.90 of economic activity. This is a stimulus measure too. At a time when we are seeing a fragile recovery, we need to put more muscle behind the recovery. Not only are we giving people a chance to make ends meet, when they take their unemployment compensation and other resources and go into the marketplace, it provides an increase in economic activity.

In fact, if we don't have increased economic activity, there is a danger this recovery will be very slow--painfully slow--and that would be unfortunate, because what we measure in terms of economic recovery is measured in American families by the opportunities to send their children to school, the opportunities to provide more for their families. If that is inhibited over months and months, then those who suffer are the American families.

There are other aspects of this. For example, the Joint Economic Committee estimated that by the end of 2010--this year--290,000 unemployed disabled workers--these are people who work but have a disability--will exhaust their benefits. If these individuals choose to drop out of the labor market and go onto the Social Security disability rolls, go through the process of being qualified and approved for disability, over the lifetime, this could result in $24.2 billion in costs, contrasted to the $721 million this year that this group would receive in extended benefits.

It is a simple sort of issue. Do we want to keep people in the workforce--at least keep them looking for work with unemployment benefits--or do we want them to say: I will give up and declare that I can't work again, and I will go see if my disability can be covered by Social Security disability insurance and, for the rest of my life, I will collect my Social Security disability, even though I would really like to work. That is another aspect of this problem.

We have a challenge tomorrow, when we greet our new colleague from West Virginia, to stand and extend unemployment benefits. Once again, if we look at history, this should have been done weeks ago on a strong, bipartisan basis, putting aside the relative politics of the moment and concentrating on what we should do for the American people. Tomorrow we will have a chance to do that, and I hope we do.

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

Mr. President, next Monday, LTG Franklin Hagenbeck will retire from the U.S. Army after 39 years of service. He is a friend and a classmate from West Point, the class of 1971.

Buster Hagenbeck has distinguished himself as a soldier, as a scholar, as an individual of peerless leadership ability. He entered West Point with the class of 1971. He graduated and was commissioned an infantry officer. He served in a succession of assignments, culminating as the commander of the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan. There he fought the fight in Operation Enduring Freedom. He served with great distinction, great judgment, and great discernment of the situation. He certainly not only exemplified the courage and character of our troops, but he felt very deeply for their concern and welfare. That is the type of individual, that is the type of soldier he is.

After serving as the G-1 of the U.S. Army, he was designated the 57th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. In the last several years, he has distinguished himself as a leader on not only issues of academic excellence but also, much more important, fulfilling the fundamental mission of the Military Academy to produce men and women committed to the motto of the academy: ``Duty, honor, country.'' Selfless service to the Nation. Buster Hagenbeck personifies that spirit.

Under his leadership, West Point has been recognized by Forbes magazine as the best liberal arts college in the country. Every year it has successful candidates for Rhodes Scholarships and Marshall Scholarships. It is ranked at the very top in terms of engineering schools in the United States. But the real hallmark of West Point, as it always has been and always must be, is the men and women they produce, the young lieutenants who are today serving in Iraq and serving in Afghanistan, serving with courage and distinction.

I think it is not only comforting for them to know but inspiring that their Superintendent led forces in Afghanistan before them, that he knows what

lies ahead of them, and that he has done everything in his capacity and power to ensure that they are ready to serve the Nation and lead the Army.

I have been privileged to be his friend, to know both him and his wife Judy, to be a beneficiary of their warm friendship and their kindness.

As he retires from the U.S. Army, ending the last class of 1971 graduates in active service to the Army and the Nation, I congratulate him and thank him.