Floor Statements

First, let me commend Chairman Dodd for his leadership on this very important legislation that is going to address one of the most significant issues facing America today; that is, restoring the value in our homes, but also giving people the hope that they can stay in their homes and helping those people who are displaced from their homes to find adequate, suitable housing.

I hope to be able to offer an amendment which would address the issue of homelessness in the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1040 to S. 836 and ask that it be made pending.

This legislation is cosponsored by Senator Kit Bond, Senator Boxer, Senator Collins, Senator Durbin, Senator Kerry, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Levin, Senator Lieberman, Senator Schumer, and Senator Whitehouse. It embodies legislation I introduced earlier this year, along with Senator Kit Bond, the Saving the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act, known in short as the HEARTH Act.

I want to particularly commend Senator Bond for his support, help, and leadership in this effort. He has been an advocate for sensible housing programs, not only on the floor of the Senate but particularly in his duties as a member of the Appropriations Committee and as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

He has been a great leader in advocating for the sensible, sound, and efficient use of taxpayers' resources to help people to find affordable housing. I thank him very much for his assistance, along with all of the other cosponsors.

This legislation is endorsed by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, U.S. Conference of Mayors, the League of Cities, NACo, Habitat for Humanity International, National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, LISC, Enterprise, National Low Income Housing Coalition, Corporation for Supportive Housing, the National Equity Fund, NAMI, the Housing Assistance Council and the National Community Development Association. It enjoys widspread support.

According to the Homelessness Research Institute at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2.5 to 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness each year. On any one night, approximately 672,000 men, women, and children are without homes.

While strides have been made to reduce homelessness over the last couple of years, the current economic decline has halted such progress.

Today I saw a front page article with a photograph in USA Today of a tent city going up. This is a phenenoman we thought was an artifact of history. Too often people are using any means to shield themselves from the elements.

Organizations such as Amos House, a shelter in my home State of Rhode Island, are seeing an increased demand for their services, while at the same time they are facing budget cuts and the economic downturn has curbed charitable donations.

I don't need to tell anybody in this Chamber how urgent this crisis is.

Across the country, we have already seen tent cities forming; shelters turning away people in need; and most major cities reporting double-digit increases in the numbers of families experiencing homelessness.

There is a tendency to view homelessness as something that happens to a few adults, men and women. But too many children are without homes.

As foreclosure and unemployment rates continue to rise, more families are being pushed out of their homes. Not everyone ends up on the streets. Some are able to move in with friends or family members, but they can not afford a home of their own and they can not find a job to get back on their feet.

America has not seen this level of displacement since the Great Depression and we simply cannot afford to ignore this problem.

That is why I am offering the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid

Transition to Housing, HEARTH, Act of 2009 as an amendment to the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act.

The Banking Committee, of which I am a member, has worked long and hard on this legislation, which I believe has resulted in a very strong piece of legislation.

This amendment invests $2.2 billion for targeted homelessness assistance grant programs and provides local communities with greater flexibility to spend money on preventing homelessness.

While strides have been made to reduce homelessness over the last couple of years, the current economic decline has halted that progress and threatens to overwhelm it.

As a result of the recession, 1.5 million additional Americans nationwide are likely to experience homelessness over the next 2 years according to estimates by the National Alliance to End Homelessness. In Rhode Island, the latest numbers show homelessness is up 43 percent since February of 2008. And the number of shelter residents who cited foreclosure as their reason for becoming homeless tripled in the last 8 months.

This means more trauma for children and adults, more dislocation from schools and communities, and more of a drain on local community services.

In addition to the $2.2 billion for HUD homeless assistance programs, the HEARTH Act would also provide up to $440 million to be used to serve people who are not homeless yet, but are at risk of homelessness. That, I think, is in accord with the spirit of the legislation Senator Dodd proposed; to prevent people from losing their homes.

It would allow cities and towns to serve people who are about to be evicted, live in severely overcrowded housing, or otherwise live in an unstable situation that puts them at risk of homelessness. The money could be used to make utility payments, security deposits, and provide short- and medium-term rental assistance.

The HEARTH Act would increase the emphasis on performance by measuring applicants' progress at reducing homelessness and providing incentives for proven solutions like rapid re-housing for families and permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless people.

This is a measure not only to provide resources but also to insist upon accountability.

Today, more families than ever are living on the edge, but the national safety net is not as big or as durable as it used to be.

This bipartisan legislation combines federal dollars with new incentives to help local communities assist families on the brink of becoming homeless. It is a wise investment of federal resources that will save taxpayers money in the long run by preventing homelessness, promoting the development of permanent supportive housing, and optimizing self-sufficiency.

Finally, I wanted to briefly talk about the definition of homelessness.

The HEARTH Act expands the HUD definition of homelessness, which determines eligibility for much of the homeless assistance funding, to include people who will lose their housing in 14 days; any family or individual fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, or other dangerous or life threatening situations; and families with children and unaccompanied youth who have experienced a long term period without living independently, have experienced persistent housing instability, and can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period due to a number of enumerated factors, such as a disability.

It also allows grantees to use up to an additional 10 percent of competitive funds to serve families defined as homeless under the Education Department homeless definition, but not so defined under the HUD definition. For areas with low levels of homelessness, up to 100 percent of funds may be used for such purposes.

The HEARTH Act also provides communities with greater flexibility in using funds to prevent and end homelessness. Whether it is the new Emergency Solutions Grant or the new Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program, that would grant rural communities greater discretion in addressing the needs of homeless people or those in the worst housing situations in their communities, this bill allows people to help people who are not technically homeless, and keep them from becoming so.

I recognize there have been tensions on the definition issue. All of us want to be sure that we are providing services to homeless children and families, and those at risk of homelessness.

Our amendment does not change the definition of homelessness in the No Child Left Behind Act for education programs that serve homeless children, nor does it seek in any way to hinder or limit these services.

In fact, our amendment strives to reach an appropriate balance to make sure that there are HUD funds available to help these families.

I hope that my colleagues can join Senator Bond and me, and support this important amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his kind words and support. I do also recognize Senator Wayne Allard of Colorado. Wayne and I worked together on this legislation for a number of years. In fact, we sort of rotated between subcommittee chairman of the Housing Subcommittee. Consistently and in a very bipartisan

fashion, we worked together. We have been joined by Senator Bond whose leadership on the Appropriations Committee is remarkable when it comes to housing issues. We benefited immensely by the contributions of Senators Allard and Bond. I did not have the fortune of knowing Stuart McKinney. I knew him only by reputation. He was known as a sterling man who worked hard when the issue of homelessness was not as central to our consciousness as it is today.

Bruce Vento was extraordinarily decent. These two gentlemen sort of pointed the way. Now we have to take up the task and move it forward and further. I think we can with this legislation.

I thank the chairman for his support and urge all colleagues to join us in support of the amendment.

I suggest the absence of quorum.

Madam President, Senator Coburn has been working very diligently over the last several years to deal with the issue of property disposition. We have established over many decades now certain priorities to access Federal properties, and included in those are very low-priority agencies that provide shelter for homeless people. Prior to these, in my recollection of the distribution of the properties, is the right of State and local governments to buy property at a discounted price.

Madam President, as Governor, you have probably considered this option many times. It is my understanding that this underlying bill would exempt a number of the properties from the Federal Property Act provisions that would allow, in fact, State and local governments to access these properties at prices that are reasonable, particularly now, given the budget pressures of local governments. But, in addition, this 5-year pilot program would encompass the largest and potentially most valuable properties that are held in surplus by the United States.

It is far from a pilot program. What our colleagues in the House are talking about is a true pilot program--a limited number of properties to validate and really legitimize the approach Senator Coburn and others are suggesting. I know the Senator has been working very diligently and sincerely with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but this represents a version, an early version, I believe, that, at least in terms of discussion with others, has been changed somewhat.

One point I wish to make with respect to the underlying amendment that is important is that we are not attempting to deal with the issue of property distribution, which cuts across the entire spectrum of Federal properties--practically every agency in the Federal Government. That encompasses not only the rights--very limited rights--of homeless groups to acquire property but fundamentally the rights of State and local communities to acquire this property. In fact, for many State and local communities, this program is a major source of economic development.

Again looking at the Chair, who was the Governor of the State of New Hampshire, Pease Air Force Base was surplus property which is now a dynamic economic development tool. My guess, again, was that it was obtained by the State, probably using at least in part some of these powers. All of that would be altered in this pilot program that would give, in fact, public lands managers wide discretion to dispose of properties. Again, it is a pilot program, but it is so long term. Five years is not exactly a short-term, let's do an experiment, evaluate it, and see what can be done.

Our legislation, the underlying amendment, is the result of many years of bipartisan effort to deal with the issue of homelessness, not the distribution or disposition of public property. I think it would represent an extraordinary improvement in the current system. It is more efficient, it consolidates applications, it gives flexibility to local communities, and it deals with the problem that I think is equally compelling for the children of today. There are thousands of children who don't have a home. We have to be cognizant of the future. We have to take prudent steps--and I wish, looking back over the last 8 years, some of my colleagues on this side would have been much more prudent in their fiscal policies that took a surplus in 2001 and turned it into a huge deficit in 2008, 2009. So the ability to look ahead is not exclusive to one side of the aisle. But the legislation I have proposed, along with Senator Bond, represents a reauthorization of McKinney-Vento, which will give the States and localities better tools to deal with the current crisis of countless families who are without homes.

My concern is not only with the breadth of this amendment, with its focus on one part of a much more complicated puzzle, but also the fact that I think it could seriously jeopardize the passage of what is important legislation--the McKinney-Vento reauthorization.

I do believe, because of the Senator's efforts, because of his sincere and energetic and consistent advocacy of this, that this issue is resonating on both sides--both with our colleagues in the House and here in the Senate. I would be extraordinarily disappointed if we were to miss a great opportunity to fundamentally reform the program.

We worked with the Senator last Congress. We had bipartisan support, led by Senator Allard. We had, in fact, the clear endorsement of President Bush and the Housing and Urban Development Department under the Bush administration for our homelessness proposal, but it failed because this legislation, the Reed amendment, was embroiled in this controversy of property disposition which spans every agency of the Federal Government. It is not just HUD, it is the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior.

I think if we are going to do something this comprehensive, let's not single out the homelessness initiative as sort of the wedge or the fulcrum or the lever. Let's step back, work collectively, collaboratively, and pass legislation that will apply across the board and will do so in a principled and practical way. There is no opposition to that.

I would also note, as the Senator alluded to, that at an appropriate moment there will be a point of order raised on the legislation. But I would hope that, again, we could move through this proposed second degree, pass the underlying amendment, and not forget but in fact redouble our efforts to approach this in a comprehensive way. I know many colleagues--not only Senator Coburn but Senator Carper--are sincerely and enthusiastically interested in having reform of the way we dispose of property.

I am certainly also in a position to say personally that I think if we do

this, we have to take into consideration the equities of all the parties. This is not just about homeless groups that get grants, this is about State and local governments, this is about the way we have established over many years the disposition of Federal property. Can it be improved? Yes, it can. Should we improve it? Yes, we should. But I think to essentially target the homeless population as sort of the lever for this change is the wrong approach. So I would, at the appropriate moment, either myself or the manager, raise a point of order.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I do have another amendment which I would like to call up, but I see the Senator from Oklahoma is here, and he should have an opportunity to speak.

Madam President, there will be an amendment that I propose that will help qualify the status of warrants that are currently held by the Department of Treasury with respect to TARP. It will give the Secretary of the Treasury discretion to dispose of those warrants when he feels it is appropriate. Right now, under language that was adopted in the context of our debates over the recent amendments to TARP, there is a mandatory requirement for the Secretary to surrender or dispose of the warrants if the TARP funds are returned by a financial institution.

I believe the Secretary should have the discretion to hold these warrants if he thinks it is in the best interests of the taxpayers. The whole point of the warrants, and a point I insisted upon in the original legislation for the TARP bill last September, indeed a point that I found to resonate with many of our colleagues on the Republican side--Spencer Bachus, the ranking Republican on the House Financial Affairs Committee cited this specifically as one of the reasons why the TARP program could be supported--and that is, in addition to our investment in preferred stock which pays dividends, the Government would also have the right to obtain warrants; that would be the right to acquire stock in the future.

Interestingly enough, at the time we were debating the TARP bill, Warren Buffett, who was a very sophisticated and is a very sophisticated investor, made a preferred stock investment in a large financial institution and also received warrants. So this is typically how many of these deals are done.

At this juncture the institutions receiving TARP funds have the right at any time to pay it back. That is an issue that has been settled. It is the policy of the United States. But I believe the Secretary of the Treasury should have the discretion, because these are separate instruments, to hold those warrants, to maximize, if he can, the market price that he will receive on behalf of the taxpayers.

This, again, is an issue that was very critical to many of us in the initial adoption of the TARP legislation. We are not mandating that the Secretary of the Treasury surrender the warrants, nor are we mandating that he keep them. It will be discretionary. He and his colleagues have, and I believe must exercise, the judgment when it is an appropriate time to surrender these warrants or to take other actions under the contracts under which they were issued, to ensure value for taxpayers.

We have made very significant investments in the financial system through the TARP program. The premise, again, was that not only would the direct investment be repaid, but taxpayers would benefit from the recovery of these institutions. We are seeing that recovery now. We have a ways to go but we are seeing some encouraging signs. I believe, again, that having assumed risks, taxpayers should benefit from the rewards of a revived

financial institution and in that case we are simply making this discretionary with the Secretary of the Treasury so that he can judge whether and when the appropriate time is to surrender the warrants, to receive fair market price for the warrants, and to ultimately help benefit the taxpayers who have put up the money to deal with a huge financial crisis.

At the appropriate time I believe there will be a consent to move forward on this amendment. I hope it would be supported and adopted, but I wanted to make that point at this juncture.

Madam President, I believe they are working on an appropriate consent to adopt it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Randy Fasnacht, a detailee from the Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the day during consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, my fellow Rhode Islanders, and the Armenian-American community to observe the 94th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

Each year, on April 24, it is fitting that we pause to remember and reflect on one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the systematic killing of Armenians. From 1915 through the end of 1923, nearly 1\1/2\ million Armenians were killed and over half a million survivors were exiled.

The Armenian genocide demonstrated the evils humans are capable of, and unfortunately, it was only the first of several 20th century tragedies.

As we reflect and recall this tragic time, let us call for our own country to recognize the Armenian genocide, just as my own State of Rhode Island has done, along with many other States and governments.

Menk panav chenk mornar--We will never forget.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the No Child Left Inside Act of 2009, which will provide new support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Collins, Cardin, Dodd, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lincoln, Menendez, Murray, Sanders, and Whitehouse for agreeing to be original cosponsors of this bill. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, teaching our young people about their natural world should be a priority, and this legislation is an important first step.

For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education.

Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge. Many schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs. Fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or popular. State and local administrators, teachers, and environmental educators point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift: the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and a lack of funding for these critical programs.

The legislation that I am introducing today would address these two concerns. First, it would provide a new professional development initiative to ensure that teachers possess the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to effectively teach environmental education in the classroom, including the use of innovative interdisciplinary and field- based learning strategies. Second, the bill would create incentives, through new funding, for states to develop a peer-reviewed comprehensive statewide environmental literacy plan to make sure prekindergarten, elementary, and secondary school students have a solid understanding of our planet and its natural resources. Lastly, the No Child Left Inside Act provides support for school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for rigorous national studies to be conducted regarding the effectiveness of environmental education on improving student academic achievement and behavior. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental groups and educational groups.

The American public recognizes that the environment is already one of the dominant issues of the 21st century. In 2003, a National Science Foundation panel noted that ``in the coming decades, the public will more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed environmental plans and understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a concerted, systemic approach to environmental education . . .'' In the private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for the future.

Climate change, conservation of precious natural resources, maintaining clean air and water, and other environmental challenges are pressing and complex issues that influence human health, economic development, and national security. A federal study released earlier this month found that students participating in environmental air quality education programs took action that resulted in improved air quality in their communities. The study concludes by recommending increased support for environmental education programs. Finding widespread agreement about the specific steps we need to take to solve these problems is difficult. Environmental education will help ensure that our Nation's children have the knowledge and skills necessary to address these critical issues. In short, the environment should be an important part of the curriculum in our schools.

I know my constituents in Rhode Island, as well as the residents of other States, want their children to be environmentally literate and have a connection with the natural world. In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society as well as countless schools, teachers, and other groups across the country, reach out to children each and every day to offer educational and outdoor experiences that these children may never otherwise have, helping to inspire them to learn. Despite these extraordinary efforts, environmental education remains out of reach for too many kids. I am proud to sponsor this important legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the No Child Left Inside Act of 2009.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the No Child Left Inside Act of 2009, which will provide new support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Collins, Cardin, Dodd, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lincoln, Menendez, Murray, Sanders, and Whitehouse for agreeing to be original cosponsors of this bill. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, teaching our young people about their natural world should be a priority, and this legislation is an important first step.

For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education.

Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge. Many schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs. Fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or popular. State and local administrators, teachers, and environmental educators point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift: the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and a lack of funding for these critical programs.

The legislation that I am introducing today would address these two concerns. First, it would provide a new professional development initiative to ensure that teachers possess the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to effectively teach environmental education in the classroom, including the use of innovative interdisciplinary and field- based learning strategies. Second, the bill would create incentives, through new funding, for states to develop a peer-reviewed comprehensive statewide environmental literacy plan to make sure prekindergarten, elementary, and secondary school students have a solid understanding of our planet and its natural resources. Lastly, the No Child Left Inside Act provides support for school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for rigorous national studies to be conducted regarding the effectiveness of environmental education on improving student academic achievement and behavior. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental groups and educational groups.

The American public recognizes that the environment is already one of the dominant issues of the 21st century. In 2003, a National Science Foundation panel noted that ``in the coming decades, the public will more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed environmental plans and understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a concerted, systemic approach to environmental education . . .'' In the private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for the future.

Climate change, conservation of precious natural resources, maintaining clean air and water, and other environmental challenges are pressing and complex issues that influence human health, economic development, and national security. A federal study released earlier this month found that students participating in environmental air quality education programs took action that resulted in improved air quality in their communities. The study concludes by recommending increased support for environmental education programs. Finding widespread agreement about the specific steps we need to take to solve these problems is difficult. Environmental education will help ensure that our Nation's children have the knowledge and skills necessary to address these critical issues. In short, the environment should be an important part of the curriculum in our schools.

I know my constituents in Rhode Island, as well as the residents of other States, want their children to be environmentally literate and have a connection with the natural world. In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society as well as countless schools, teachers, and other groups across the country, reach out to children each and every day to offer educational and outdoor experiences that these children may never otherwise have, helping to inspire them to learn. Despite these extraordinary efforts, environmental education remains out of reach for too many kids. I am proud to sponsor this important legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the No Child Left Inside Act of 2009.

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

Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for Christopher R. Hill to be the next Ambassador to Iraq. I have had the privilege of working with Ambassador Hill and I know him. He is a Rhode Islander. He was born in Little Compton, where he resides. He brought his fine skills and talents to public service many years ago. He has distinguished himself in that service over many years. He is being posted to one of the most critical areas of the world.

Mr. President, you and I just returned from Iraq. One of the comments we heard from General Odierno and from our diplomatic personnel was the need to rapidly confirm Ambassador Hill. They have every confidence in him. They believe he cannot only do the job but do it extremely well. I think their support is much more compelling than the opposition I have heard on the Senate floor today.

We understand, as they do, the real step forward in Iraq is building its governmental capacity and dealing with very explicit problems, one of which--and the Presiding Officer and I have both spoken on this today--is the tension between the Kurds and Arabs around Kirkuk, with respect to oil. Our Ambassador has to hit the ground running and deal with a very difficult set of issues. Chris Hill is prepared to do that.

Together with General Odierno, they will form a team that will continue the progress that has been made over the last several months.

Ambassador Hill, as I mentioned, is from Rhode Island. He earned his B.A. from Bowdoin College and a masters from the Naval War College, also in Rhode Island. He is extremely well qualified for this position, with a lifetime of diplomatic service and facing challenges in many different arenas, and facing them with distinction. He has particular skills in bridging gaps and bringing people together, which will be critical.

Ambassador Hill entered the Foreign Service in 1977. In the 1980s, he served in various positions within the State Department in Washington. He was an economic officer in the Embassies in Belgrade, Yugoslavia; Warsaw, Poland; and Seoul, Korea.

Beginning in 1991, he spent 2 years as the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tirana, Albania. From 1994 to 1996, he was the Director of the Office of South Central European Affairs.

Then, in 1996, he was named the Ambassador of Macedonia during a period when the United States was actively engaged in multilateral efforts to prevent the spread of ethnic conflict in Macedonia, bolster Macedonian independence and state viability, and manage bilateral disputes between Macedonia and Greece. He worked with our American military forces during that period.

The first time I met with him I was with the commander of the First Infantry Division of the U.S. Army who was on the ground. So the Ambassador is someone who has already been in a situation in which ethnic tension, bilateral relationships between regional

powers, and Army military stabilization operations were underway. I think that experience will make him extremely prepared for and equipped to accomplish the mission he has been assigned in Baghdad.

Ambassador Hill was also part of a team that was assembled by Ambassador Holbrooke that negotiated the Bosnian peace settlement. He fought to ensure that protections were included for those who had been made refugees by the war. In one instance, he personally intervened at the Stenkovac refugee camp to prevent a rioting mob from beating an ethnic Roma family to death.

I think he has a sensitivity to ethnic and sectarian tension, not gleaned from textbooks but from personal involvement and engagement in these situations.

In 2004, he returned to Seoul, Korea, this time as the Ambassador. There he partnered with Korean authorities and the commander of the U.S. Forces Korea, General Leon LePorte, another Rhode Islander, to develop and implement the most significant realignment of our military posture in the region since the Korean war. I think it was an effort that today is bearing fruit in terms of the ability of U.S. forces in Korea to continue their mission with a smaller footprint, and indeed to be able to support operations around the globe as units from Korea are being sent into the combat zone in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most recently, after his experience as Ambassador to Seoul, he served as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and also as head of--as somebody mentioned--the six-party talks, which attempted to get the North Koreans to move away from their path of nuclear progress they had been making. He worked hard to dismantle their main nuclear facility and provide a full accounting for their plutonium.

Ambassador Hill also engaged in issues of human rights. It has been pointed out that not all of the efforts have been completely successful. But what he was doing was carrying out the policy of the beneficiary administration. He was carrying out the instructions of the Secretary of State and the President of the United States. I think he did that with fidelity to his responsibilities to his superiors and also a keen commitment to improving a situation that had become very dire indeed.

Ambassador Hill has received numerous awards, including the Secretary of State's Distinguished Service Award, the Francis Shattuck Security and Peace Award, the Robert C. Frasure Memorial Award for Peace Negotiations, and the Secretary of Defense Medal of Meritorious Civilian Service.

Ambassador Hill, with his talent, his character, and his commitment to the Nation, has also been recognized because he has been endorsed for this position by the last three Ambassadors to Iraq, including Ryan Crocker, Zalmay Khalilzad, and John Negroponte. These gentlemen did an extraordinarily good job for us there. I am particularly singling out Ryan Crocker--someone whose commitment was not just in terms of his professional skill but his physical skill--risking his life numerous times, working day and night, 7 days a week, and doing it with distinction and grace. That is remarkable.

Again, no one is going to be another Ryan Crocker. I think it is extraordinarily significant that Ryan Crocker, who probably knows that job as well as anybody, would endorse Christopher Hill to take the job. He would not do it just as a courtesy to a fellow State Department officer. He did it because I believe he understands that Ambassador Hill not only can do the job but will do it.

I also say the same thing about the commitment and sincerity and support of Zalmay Khalilzad and John Negroponte. Furthermore, I think both General Petraeus and General Odierno have indicated that not only is he someone with whom they can work, they want to be able to work with him quickly. They want him on the ground. Iraq is at a pivotal juncture in the history of that country and its relationship with the United States. The intelligence and commitment and experience of the Ambassador to Iraq is critical. Ambassador Hill has an abundance of the necessary skills. He has proven again and again he can bring a possible situation to a workable solution. He is the right man for the job. I urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my amendment would focus on the issue I think we are all concerned about, and it would be a counterpoint to Senator Vitter's amendment, and that would be the administration of the Troubled Asset Relieve Program. My amendment would create a reserve fund, which would focus the remaining resources in the TARP fund on supporting small businesses, saving homeowners from foreclosure, helping the bond market, and making credit more widely available. It would also strengthen the oversight entities, the Special Inspector General, the Congressional Oversight Panel, and the Government Accountability Office.

Senator Vitter's amendment purports to take back the money by striking certain functions, such as function 370. But that function also has the funding for the FHA, the Rural Housing Program, and the Small Business Administration. In effect, we will not be taking away the TARP money, we will be challenging these other programs to find funds.

I urge adoption of my amendment and the rejection of Senator Vitter's amendment.

Mr. President, I offer it at this time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Reed amendment, which we just adopted, focuses the remaining TARP funds on functions that are critical to the economic progress of the country--keeping people in homes, providing help for small business, supporting the traditional bond market, making credit more widely available. The restriction of these funds proposed by Senator Vitter will undercut these objectives. In addition, the Reed amendment has strengthened the oversight responsibilities.

Secretary Geithner has just announced a program that will focus on these toxic assets. Keeping these TARP funds, I believe, will give the Treasury the flexibility to make that program work more effectively, and I oppose the Vitter amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Bond, Akaka, Boxer, Collins, Durbin, Kerry, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Schumer, and Whitehouse, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act, HEARTH Act. Representative Gwen Moore is introducing a bipartisan companion bill today as well. This legislation would reauthorize and amend the housing titles of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Specifically, our bill would consolidate and improve the homeless assistance programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to better accomplish the goals of preventing and ending homelessness.

According to the Homelessness Research Institute at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2.5 to 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness each year. On any one night, approximately 672,000 men, women, and children are without homes. While strides have been made to reduce homelessness over the last couple of years, the current economic decline has halted such progress. We have already seen tent cities forming, shelters turning away people, and cities reporting increased numbers of homeless people. As unemployment continues to rise, more and more people cannot afford to pay their mortgages or rent, and nonprofits and local governments are unable to keep up.

As a result of the recession, 1.5 million additional Americans are likely to experience homelessness over the next two years according to estimates by the National Alliance to End Homelessness. This means more trauma for children and adults, more dislocation from schools and communities, and more of a drain on local community services.

Sadly, many of those who are homeless have served our country in uniform. Their numbers range between 150,000 and 200,000 on any given night. Three times that many veterans are housed, but are struggling with excessive rent burdens and an increased risk of homelessness. Different sources estimate that between 23 and 40 percent of homeless adults are veterans.

Statistics regarding the number of children who experience homelessness are especially troubling. Each year, it is estimated that at least 1.35 million children experience homelessness. According to HUD's 3rd Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, on any given night, 248,500 persons in families are homeless. Each year, over 800,000 homeless children and youth are identified and enrolled in public schools. However, this count does not include preschool children, and at least half of all homeless children are under the age of five. Whatever their age, we know that children who are homeless are in poorer health, have developmental delays, and suffer academically.

In addition, many of those who are homeless have a disability. According to the Homelessness Research Institute, about 23 percent of homeless people were found to be ``chronically homeless,'' which according to the current HUD definition means that they are homeless for long periods of time or homeless repeatedly, and they have a disability. For many of these individuals and families, housing alone, without some supportive services, may not be enough.

Finally, as rents have soared and affordable housing units have disappeared from the market during the past several years, even more working Americans have been left unable to afford housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition's most recent ``Out of Reach'' report, nowhere in the country can a minimum wage earner afford to rent a one-bedroom home. Low income renters who live paycheck to paycheck are in precarious circumstances and sometimes must make tough choices between paying rent and buying food, prescription drugs, or other necessities. If one unforeseen event occurs in their lives, they can end up homeless.

There is also a great societal cost to homelessness, including expenses for emergency rooms, jails, shelters, foster care, detoxification, and emergency mental health treatment. Indeed, studies have shown it costs just as much, if not more in overall expenditures, to allow men, women, and children to remain homeless as it does to provide them with assistance and get them back on the road to self- sufficiency.

It has been 22 years since the enactment of the Steward B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, and we have learned a lot about the problem of homelessness since then. At the time of its adoption in 1987, this law was viewed as an emergency response to a national crisis, and was to be followed by measures to prevent homelessness and to create more systemic solutions to the problem. It is now time to take what we have learned during the past 22 years, and put those best practices and proposals into action.

First and foremost, the HEARTH Act focuses federal funding on prevention. It allows up to 20 percent of funds to be used to serve people who are at risk of homelessness under a new ``Emergency Solutions Grants'' program. At the same time, it expands the definition of homelessness, which determines eligibility for much of the homeless assistance funding, to include people who will lose their housing in 14 days; any family or individual fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, or other dangerous or life threatening situations; and families with children and unaccompanied youth who have experienced a long term period without living independently, have experienced persistent housing instability, and can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period due to a number of enumerated factors, such as a disability. It also allows grantees to use up to an additional 10 percent of competitive funds to serve families defined as homeless under the Education Department homeless definition, but not so defined under the HUD definition. For areas with low levels of homelessness, up to 100 percent of funds may be used for such purposes.

The HEARTH Act also provides communities with greater flexibility in using funds to prevent and end homelessness. Rural communities can participate in a new Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program that would grant rural communities greater discretion in addressing the needs of homeless people or those in the worst housing situations in their communities.

The HEARTH Act would also increase the focus on practices and programs that have demonstrated results. For example, the bill would require that HUD provide incentives for rapid rehousing programs for homeless families. Rapid rehousing programs have been successfully used in numerous communities to significantly reduce family homelessness. By dramatically reducing the length of time families are homeless, rapid rehousing programs ensure a quicker return to stability and self sufficiency.

The HEARTH Act would continue HUD's existing initiative to house people who experience chronic homelessness, but would add families with children to the initiative. It also would designate 30 percent of total funds for new permanent housing for families and individuals with a disability.

Finally, the HEARTH Act would increase the emphasis on performance by measuring applicants' progress at reducing homelessness. It would also allow communities with low levels of homelessness or that are reducing homelessness to focus more on prevention and serving people who are at risk of homelessness.

There is a growing consensus on ways to help communities break the cycle of repeated and prolonged homelessness. If we combine federal dollars with the right incentives to local communities, we can prevent and end long-term homelessness.

The bipartisan HEARTH Act will set us on the path to meeting this important national goal. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill and other homelessness prevention efforts.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Bond, Akaka, Boxer, Collins, Durbin, Kerry, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Schumer, and Whitehouse, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act, HEARTH Act. Representative Gwen Moore is introducing a bipartisan companion bill today as well. This legislation would reauthorize and amend the housing titles of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. Specifically, our bill would consolidate and improve the homeless assistance programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to better accomplish the goals of preventing and ending homelessness.

According to the Homelessness Research Institute at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2.5 to 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness each year. On any one night, approximately 672,000 men, women, and children are without homes. While strides have been made to reduce homelessness over the last couple of years, the current economic decline has halted such progress. We have already seen tent cities forming, shelters turning away people, and cities reporting increased numbers of homeless people. As unemployment continues to rise, more and more people cannot afford to pay their mortgages or rent, and nonprofits and local governments are unable to keep up.

As a result of the recession, 1.5 million additional Americans are likely to experience homelessness over the next two years according to estimates by the National Alliance to End Homelessness. This means more trauma for children and adults, more dislocation from schools and communities, and more of a drain on local community services.

Sadly, many of those who are homeless have served our country in uniform. Their numbers range between 150,000 and 200,000 on any given night. Three times that many veterans are housed, but are struggling with excessive rent burdens and an increased risk of homelessness. Different sources estimate that between 23 and 40 percent of homeless adults are veterans.

Statistics regarding the number of children who experience homelessness are especially troubling. Each year, it is estimated that at least 1.35 million children experience homelessness. According to HUD's 3rd Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, on any given night, 248,500 persons in families are homeless. Each year, over 800,000 homeless children and youth are identified and enrolled in public schools. However, this count does not include preschool children, and at least half of all homeless children are under the age of five. Whatever their age, we know that children who are homeless are in poorer health, have developmental delays, and suffer academically.

In addition, many of those who are homeless have a disability. According to the Homelessness Research Institute, about 23 percent of homeless people were found to be ``chronically homeless,'' which according to the current HUD definition means that they are homeless for long periods of time or homeless repeatedly, and they have a disability. For many of these individuals and families, housing alone, without some supportive services, may not be enough.

Finally, as rents have soared and affordable housing units have disappeared from the market during the past several years, even more working Americans have been left unable to afford housing. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition's most recent ``Out of Reach'' report, nowhere in the country can a minimum wage earner afford to rent a one-bedroom home. Low income renters who live paycheck to paycheck are in precarious circumstances and sometimes must make tough choices between paying rent and buying food, prescription drugs, or other necessities. If one unforeseen event occurs in their lives, they can end up homeless.

There is also a great societal cost to homelessness, including expenses for emergency rooms, jails, shelters, foster care, detoxification, and emergency mental health treatment. Indeed, studies have shown it costs just as much, if not more in overall expenditures, to allow men, women, and children to remain homeless as it does to provide them with assistance and get them back on the road to self- sufficiency.

It has been 22 years since the enactment of the Steward B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, and we have learned a lot about the problem of homelessness since then. At the time of its adoption in 1987, this law was viewed as an emergency response to a national crisis, and was to be followed by measures to prevent homelessness and to create more systemic solutions to the problem. It is now time to take what we have learned during the past 22 years, and put those best practices and proposals into action.

First and foremost, the HEARTH Act focuses federal funding on prevention. It allows up to 20 percent of funds to be used to serve people who are at risk of homelessness under a new ``Emergency Solutions Grants'' program. At the same time, it expands the definition of homelessness, which determines eligibility for much of the homeless assistance funding, to include people who will lose their housing in 14 days; any family or individual fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, or other dangerous or life threatening situations; and families with children and unaccompanied youth who have experienced a long term period without living independently, have experienced persistent housing instability, and can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period due to a number of enumerated factors, such as a disability. It also allows grantees to use up to an additional 10 percent of competitive funds to serve families defined as homeless under the Education Department homeless definition, but not so defined under the HUD definition. For areas with low levels of homelessness, up to 100 percent of funds may be used for such purposes.

The HEARTH Act also provides communities with greater flexibility in using funds to prevent and end homelessness. Rural communities can participate in a new Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program that would grant rural communities greater discretion in addressing the needs of homeless people or those in the worst housing situations in their communities.

The HEARTH Act would also increase the focus on practices and programs that have demonstrated results. For example, the bill would require that HUD provide incentives for rapid rehousing programs for homeless families. Rapid rehousing programs have been successfully used in numerous communities to significantly reduce family homelessness. By dramatically reducing the length of time families are homeless, rapid rehousing programs ensure a quicker return to stability and self sufficiency.

The HEARTH Act would continue HUD's existing initiative to house people who experience chronic homelessness, but would add families with children to the initiative. It also would designate 30 percent of total funds for new permanent housing for families and individuals with a disability.

Finally, the HEARTH Act would increase the emphasis on performance by measuring applicants' progress at reducing homelessness. It would also allow communities with low levels of homelessness or that are reducing homelessness to focus more on prevention and serving people who are at risk of homelessness.

There is a growing consensus on ways to help communities break the cycle of repeated and prolonged homelessness. If we combine federal dollars with the right incentives to local communities, we can prevent and end long-term homelessness.

The bipartisan HEARTH Act will set us on the path to meeting this important national goal. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill and other homelessness prevention efforts.

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

Mr. President, I rise in support of this budget resolution. I particularly commend Senator Conrad for his extraordinary work.

Later, at the conclusion of my brief remarks, I will call up an amendment.

We have a situation that is unprecedented in the history of the country--extraordinary economic challenges, extraordinary international challenges. This budget resolution is designed to and will, I believe, help get our economy moving again and serve as a catalyst for job creation and for long-term growth. It will also put this Nation on a sustainable path in a fiscal dimension. The budget resolution reflects a commitment to transparency and restores honesty and integrity to the process. The budget incorporates the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were notably neglected in past budgets. It enhances oversight of Government, including defense procurement spending, to root out waste, fraud, and abuse.

We are in very challenging circumstances, both domestically and internationally, and this budget reflects and faces up to those challenges.

Against these daunting challenges, the priorities reflected in the budget are clear: lower the tax burden on working men and women and small businesses, trim health care costs, invest in education, and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

For too long, these challenges have undermined our economic vitality, and they will continue to drive down progress unless we take essential steps, as reflected in this budget, to deal with them. These are reasonable and necessary provisions. They represent a way to grow our economy and put more money in the pockets of middle-class Americans.

We are inheriting a weakened fiscal position based on the policies of the last 8 years, marked by an economic ideology that extended significant tax cuts to the very wealthiest, skewing these tax cuts so they benefitted a very few rather than ordinary Americans.

The Obama administration inherited an economic mess, a $1.3 trillion budget deficit and a near doubling of the public debt, rising from $3.3 trillion in 2001 to $5.8 trillion in 2008. This doubling of our debt occurred at a time of

macroeconomic prosperity and strong productivity growth. Yet, for middle-class Americans who have been working harder and more innovatively, there is little or no job creation. In fact, family incomes fell $2,000 between 2000 and 2007. Simply put, most families saw their income fall by $2,000 in a period of economic boom and prosperity, and we have to reverse that. We have to make an economy that will provide the jobs and the growth of income that Americans depend upon to educate their children, provide for their health care needs, and to contribute to their community.

This budget will provide that path of sustainable economic growth. It will do so by making investments to counter some of the downward spiral we have seen over the last several years.

It will invest in tax reform. This budget provides tax cuts for 95 percent of working Americans. It will close tax loopholes to ensure that we are all paying our fair share. It will eliminate some complicated, sophisticated tax shelters that benefit the wealthy but do not benefit working families.

In addition, it will focus on health care reform, which is necessary not only for our position as citizens but also for our economic future. Despite technological innovation, despite technological advances in medicine, far too many of these basic services are out of reach of Americans. They are simply not affordable or accessible. This budget will set the parameters for significant health care reform.

It will also begin to address the issue of global warming, which has huge implications internationally.

I gladly yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. President, can you remind me or let me know when 1 minute remains?

Mr. President, we are dealing with a plethora of issues that are absolutely critical to the economic success of the country. I mentioned climate effects. I mentioned investment in reducing our carbon footprint. All of these have been outlined and provided for in this budget resolution.

We are also going a long way to invest in the future of the country through education. I am pleased to see that this proposal includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund for higher education to allow for expanding student aid.

I have worked with Senator Collins on an amendment to ensure that this reserve fund may be used for increased investments in the Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program which provides critical need-based grant aid and support services to low- income students.

This budget also provides for increased spending on Pell Grants, and as such, invests in our greatest resource, the talent and innovation and imagination of America. In that sense, I think this is a very strong step forward.

The budget helps deal with the issues facing small business in terms of providing, for example, $880 million for the Small Business Administration. It is small businesses, indeed, that create the jobs. Too often in the past, we have talked the talk but not walked the walk. This budget provides real resources for the Small Business Administration.

We have very difficult decisions to make, but we have made them before. I can recall being elected in 1990, beginning in 1991 with a huge deficit. Through the tough decisions we made here, a Democratic Congress following a Democratic Congress, we were able to not only turn the economy around but reduce the deficit. That is something we have to do going forward, and we must do that. I think this budget will position us to do that.

We have a difficult series of choices before us. I believe this budget and the work of Senator Conrad have positioned us to respond to the crisis of the moment and positioned us to take opportunities of the future.

Amendment No. 836

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 836, the Reed-Snowe LIHEAP amendment.

Mr. President, very briefly, this amendment would enhance and increase funding for the LIHEAP program. It is a program that is absolutely essential as we see energy prices begin to creep up again. When it hits again next winter, we will need these funds. When heating costs increase this summer in the Southwest and Southeast, we will need these funds.

I am proud to join Senator Snowe in supporting this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it when it comes up for a vote.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am very pleased to offer this amendment with my colleague, Senator Snowe of Maine. It is a bipartisan amendment that would increase funding for LIHEAP from $3.2 billion to $5.1 billion. That $5.1 billion is the total we spent this year.

This is a program critical to seniors, critical to low-income people. With unemployment rates soaring in double digits, there are more and more people who will qualify. If we do not raise this ceiling, approximately 1.5 million households will lose help with their heating bills, not only in the wintertime but in the hot months in the areas of the Southwest and Southeast because they, too, benefit from LIHEAP.

Mr. President, I would be prepared to accept a voice vote, hopefully a very positive voice vote. If not, I would ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1388, the Serve America Act. I particularly commend Senator Mikulski for her leadership on this very important initiative. She has done more than anyone to bring this bill to the floor and it being on the verge of successful passage. I say thank you, Madam Chairwoman as well as Senators Kennedy, Hatch, and Enzi for your excellent work on this bill.

This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes the National and Community Service Act for the first time since 1993. It strengthens our commitment to the importance and value of national and community service for individuals of all ages.

I was pleased the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was signed into law last month included $154 million for AmeriCorps State and national programs and AmeriCorps VISTA. This funding is estimated to engage 13,000 additional individuals in service to their communities. In his address to Congress last month, President Obama encouraged ``a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations'' and called for quick congressional action on the legislation we seek to pass today.

There are a variety of ways to serve your country. You can serve in the Armed Forces, as I did, or you can serve in your community, as so many Americans are doing today. More than ever, being a good citizen means not only working hard and providing for one's family but also being an engaged and contributing member of the community, and particularly to those most in need in your community.

We make ourselves better by engaging in service that gives back to our communities and makes our society better, through teaching, mentoring and tutoring children, cleaning up rivers and streams, building housing for the homeless, and addressing the medical needs of the ailing, to name a few endeavors that are so critical.

The AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, and Senior Corps programs have greatly benefitted my State. Rhode Island has a proud tradition of service and was one of the first States to embrace the AmeriCorps program. More than 14,000 Rhode Islanders participated in those programs last year.

Participants in these programs are given an opportunity to learn as well as an opportunity to serve. In the act of serving their community, participants often make a difference in their own lives--developing their own knowledge, skills, character, and self-esteem, and incorporating an ethic of civic responsibility for the rest of their lives.

As a cosponsor of this legislation, I am particularly pleased that this bill includes changes I advocated to maximize Rhode Island's funding through the AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve programs. The Serve America Act includes a statutory small State minimum for the AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve formula programs for the first time. It also includes a provision I authored to ensure that small, innovative AmeriCorps programs such as those found throughout Rhode Island get their fair share of competitive grant funding. Additionally, I am pleased that this legislation includes changes I sought to encourage volunteers to focus on helping low-income individuals find affordable housing.

This is legislation that is important. It is critical. It lives up to our highest traditions as a nation; that is, to be something more than one who enjoys their rights but also who discharges their responsibilities through service to the community and the Nation. I urge passage.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Samantha Harvell, a fellow in Senator Bingaman's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of H.R. 1388.

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

Mr. President, it is a distinct honor for me to rise in support of Dean Elena Kagan and her nomination to be Solicitor General of the United States. As most of my colleagues are aware, she has had an illustrious legal career that includes clerking for Judge Abner Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and also Justice Thurgood Marshall on the U.S. Supreme Court. She has obtained tenure in two of the most distinguished law schools in the country: the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School. She served as Special Counsel in the Clinton administration, and now she is dean of the Harvard Law School.

I had the privilege of getting to know Dean Kagan through alumni activities at Harvard Law School. She is much younger than I, obviously much smarter than I, but we still are alumni of the same law school. She is extraordinarily qualified to be the Solicitor General based on her intellectual gifts but also in terms of her temperament, her professionalism, her experience, and her innate sense of fairness and decency. She will represent the United States well, not only with her legal analysis but with her commitment to the principles that sustain this country based on the Constitution of the United States. There are many qualities that make her ideally suited for this job--her temperament, her maturity, her judgment, her success in leading one of the most complicated faculties in the country.

Most lawyers have opinions, so when you put 100 or so of them together, you have a lot of different viewpoints. She has led Harvard Law School with great skill and with great success. I think it will be an indication of her ability to lead the Solicitor General's office and to harmonize in principle, reaching substantive agreements, the critical issues that are debated within the this important office and going forward.

In the 5 years she has been dean of the law school, she also received great acclaim for bridging the differences in approaches and viewpoints at the school, with hiring new faculty members with diverse viewpoints, different from hers, recognizing that the heart and soul of an academic institution is debate, vigorous debate, not orthodoxy but vigorous debate, and she has done that.

She has been very attentive to the needs of the students there. I was particularly impressed when I visited the law school and had a chance to meet some veterans of the U.S. military who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who were then current law students at Harvard. Their praise for the dean, both her personal qualities and her leadership qualities, was unstinted. They saw her as someone who deeply appreciated their sacrifice as soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen in the service of this Nation. They understood this not just from what she said, but from her attitude, her deep and profound respect for their service. I thought that was a particularly telling point, commending her to me in a very real and very immediate sense.

What is also particularly striking about Dean Kagan is that her entire life's work as a legal scholar shows a deep and profound commitment to the Constitution of the United States which governs us all. She has committed herself to giving it meaning, to making it a force to advance the ideals of this country. She brings not only great respect for the Constitution, great knowledge of the Constitution, but also the understanding that this is a document that unites us--our aspirations, our ideals, our hopes, our wishes for the future--it links us to the past and it unites us to go forward into the future.

She was asked by officials at my other alma mater, West Point, in October 2007 to speak to the cadets because they recognize that this is a woman of rare talent as a lawyer and rare judgment, someone who understands that we live in a government of laws, not of men and women. That is a fundamental lesson that must be imparted to those who take an oath to protect with their lives the Constitution of the United States, to recognize that we are a nation of laws, and soldiers, more than anyone else, have to recognize that because it is their lives that give us the opportunity to live under this Constitution of laws.

She used as a touchstone for this speech a place on campus at West Point called Constitution Corner. It was the gift of the West Point class of 1943. It was to recognize that, in fact, soldiers in this great country are servants to the Constitution.

One of the five plaques at this site is entitled ``Loyalty to the Constitution,'' which basically states what all of us who have been in the military are keenly aware, that the United States broke with an ancient tradition. Instead of swearing loyalty to a military leader, American soldiers swear their loyalty to the Constitution of the United States. I had that rare privilege on July 3, 1967, when I took the oath as a cadet at West Point.

The rest of her speech explored the fundamental rule of law, giving purpose and context to what these young men and women, soldiers in our Nation, will do when they lead other soldiers to defend--not territory, not business enterprises, but the foundation of our country--the Constitution of the United States.

She mentioned examples of people who have put the Constitution before their own personal comfort and privilege--President Nixon's Attorney General Archibald Cox, who refused to go along with summary firings in the wake of the Watergate scandal, and President George W. Bush's Attorney General John Ashcroft, our former colleague, both of whom did their best to uphold the rule of law in very trying circumstances. These are examples that I think resonated very well with the cadets.

I believe the dean is someone who has not just the skill, not just the mind, but the heart to serve with distinction as Solicitor General of the United States. She will be a forceful and powerful advocate, not for the administration, not for any small, narrow cause, but for the Constitution of the United States. I believe that is the fundamental role of the Solicitor General, one she will perform admirably.

I recommend without reservation Dean Kagan to this body. I hope we all rise to support her. If confirmed as the first female Solicitor General of the United States, we will be extremely fortunate to have her representing the people of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided between both sides.

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