Floor Statements

Mr. President, this evening I have the privilege of joining my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, to say a few words about our esteemed predecessor, Senator Claiborne Pell.

Senator Pell served 36 years in the Senate--the longest serving Senator in the history of Rhode Island. He was elected in 1960, along with his friend and young Democrat John F. Kennedy. They brought a new spirit, a new vision, new hope to America. He served until 1997, when I had the distinct honor and, indeed, privilege of succeeding him as a Senator from Rhode Island. He was an extraordinary gentleman, and he will be missed by all Rhode Islanders and, indeed, by this Senate.

I was honored yesterday to be asked by Nuala Pell to say a few words at his services in Newport, RI. First, I obviously pointed out that Claiborne's public service was sustained and inspired by his wife and his family. Nuala and all of their children were the support, comfort, and the meaning in his life. We owe them our thanks as well for his 36 distinguished years of service in the Senate.

Claiborne Pell was a remarkable individual. He was born to great wealth and privilege, but he had an abiding affinity for the average guy. I sense that part of that was at a critical moment in his life, before Pearl Harbor, when the war clouds were gathering in Europe and Asia. He had graduated from Princeton, but he knew he had to serve. Because of his prestige, because of his family, he could easily have secured a safe posting somewhere. He chose instead to join the U.S. Coast Guard as an enlisted cook, to sail the North Atlantic on deadly convoy routes bringing needed supplies to Great Britain. There, he worked with other young Americans, without pretense, without preference. There, he understood the great talent, the great power of Americans, that if they had opportunity, if they could better themselves through education, they would be extraordinarily important to this Nation and they would be able to provide a better life for their families. They could, indeed, seize and realize the American dream.

Many people had that experience in World War II, but Claiborne used to it shape his entire public life. He served in the diplomatic corps, but by 1960 he was committed to serving the people of Rhode Island, and he entered the primary against two venerable, well-known, distinguished Rhode Island Democrats, Dennis J. Roberts, former Governor, and J. Howard McGrath, former U.S. Senator, a former Solicitor General, former Attorney General in the Truman administration. Young Claiborne Pell won because he struck a cord with the people of Rhode Island, because he was able to translate his feeling for opportunity, for the privilege that education bestows on every person, to the people of Rhode Island. He and Nuala campaigned and won, and then for 36 years they served with such distinction, with such honor, and brought such credit to our State.

He is best known as the author of the Pell grant, which provides grants to students to go to higher education, but he did so much more in the field of education. He was involved in numerous reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. He labored over these provisions to make sure young Americans were prepared for college. He was also the author of the national sea grant college grant. Just as we have land grant colleges dating back to the Moral Act of the 1860s, Claiborne said we should have a sea grant act that would allow the sciences of the oceans, maritime sciences, to be taught, to be explored, to be investigated on college campuses.

He did so much. In addition to his dedication to education, he also was the creator of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities in 1965. He understood that in the great sweep of time, our military power might fade, our economic power might fade, but the power of our ideals, as expressed in our literature, in our arts, would continue to move the world. And in order to make that access possible, not for the well-to-do but for everyone, he created the notion of a National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities.

Thinking back in preparation for my words yesterday, I thought of how often his life intersected with mine, starting at 10 years old in 1960. I saw the motorcade rushing by my grammar school with John F. Kennedy and Claiborne Pell in those final days of the campaign. But in regard to the National Endowment for the Arts, my first exposure to theater-- and I was the proud son of working-class Cranstonians in Cranston, RI-- was Project Discover in which Trinity Repertory Company brought students in to see an act from Richard the II. That was all part of the vision Claiborne had of giving people an opportunity to explore the arts, to find their talent. He did it remarkably well.

Today, these two institutions endure. They provide access for millions of Americans to the arts, to the humanities. They have encouraged creativity, and all of it is a tribute to Claiborne Pell.

He was perhaps most recognized in international affairs for his staunch support of the United Nations. Yesterday, one of the eulogists, President Clinton, pointed out that every time he saw Claiborne Pell, as President, Claiborne would take out from the back pocket a worn copy of the U.N. Charter which he carried and point out to him the value of the United Nations, the value of collective security. He was there in San Francisco in 1945 when the U.N. was created. He was there in New York City 50 years later for its 50th anniversary.

But his notion of a powerful America leading the world, not standing apart from it, his notion that our values, our system, our commitment to human decency would prevail in the face of Soviet totalitarianism and other forms of totalitarianism was wisdom of the ages. In his service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he not only espoused those views, every day he reminded us our destiny would take us far beyond what simply a military operation or our economic power might because of our ideals, because of our commitment to multinational support of creating a world community--a remarkable man.

He was someone who left and has left an indelible mark on Rhode Island and Rhode Islanders. As I mentioned yesterday, I had the privilege of witnessing this profound bond so many times. We have a parade each Fourth of July in Bristol, RI. It is the largest parade in Rhode Island. One hundred thousand people, which is about a tenth of the population of our State, gathers for it. It is the oldest consecutive Fourth of July parade in our country. To walk in that parade is a great honor. But to walk with Claiborne Pell is an extraordinary experience. For the first few steps, you pretend the cheers are for you, but that quickly fades because, mile after mile, people rush up and say: Thank you, Senator Pell. Thank you, Senator Pell. Thank you for the help when I needed it. Thank you for the Pell grant. Thank you for being the ideal public servant. Then you would see parents lift toddlers and say: There goes a great man, Claiborne Pell.

Well, he has touched us and he has made us so much better. I had the rare privilege and opportunity yesterday to say, on behalf of the people of Rhode Island, something all of my fellow citizens wanted to say as soon as they heard the news, as soon as they realized the great light of Claiborne Pell had dimmed; and those are two simple words: Thank you, Senator Pell.

Mr. President, now I would like to yield the floor to my colleague and friend, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who is someone who is molded in the image of Claiborne Pell, someone who understands, as Senator Pell did, that opportunity is the engine that drives

America, that our great skills have to be harnessed to a higher purpose. It is such a privilege and pleasure to serve with him. And not only that, but he has been a dear and personal friend of the Claiborne Pell family for many years, indeed generations. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. President, I am dismayed by the turn of events that have occurred this evening.

Our Nation faces economic conditions not seen in decades. By preventing action tonight on a plan to give the auto industry a chance to turn itself around, the minority is playing with fire.

The jobs of countless workers, including thousands in Rhode Island, are on the line, at a time when we can ill afford more losses. Moreover, these companies going into bankruptcy could be far more costly to the federal government. And, as economist Mark Zandi testified before the Senate Banking Committee last week, if these companies are forced into bankruptcy proceedings, it would have a cataclysmic effect on our already fragile economy.

The bill that Chairman Dodd and my other colleagues worked on diligently had the potential to give the industry a chance to put its house in order while preserving jobs and protecting the taxpayers. I regret we did not have a chance to proceed to this measure, engage in vigorous debate, and make a judgment on the merits.

Mr. President, I rise in support of extending unemployment insurance to help the 10 million jobless Americans, the most in a quarter century, who are searching for work.

In the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, turmoil on Wall Street, and decline in consumer spending, workers throughout this country are being given pink slips by the thousands. In fact, we are seeing record numbers today, further amplifying the depth and the seriousness of this employment crisis in the United States. The situation continues to worsen. This does not appear to be a passing trend, but, unfortunately, unless we do something quickly and appropriately, we can anticipate continuing job losses. We have already seen across the country individuals whom we know--family members, cousins, friends--who, one, are either losing their job, or, two, are being very concerned that their employment status is tenuous and at any moment they could be given the word that they have lost their job. Over the course of 1 month, national job loss numbers jumped from 6.1 percent to 6.5 percent--an extraordinary jump in 1 month. Updated State numbers, which will be released on Friday, will unfortunately likely continue to reflect this deterioration in our job markets.

Despite this bad news, a resolution of this employment crisis does not seem to be approaching. As I suggested, there are indications this will get worse before it gets better--another reason to act now to try to provide support and assistance to those people who have worked and now find themselves without a job, through no fault of their own.

In my home State of Rhode Island, these national trends are amplified dramatically. Nearly 9 percent of Rhode Islanders are now unemployed. That is 50,200 people. We are a small State with a relatively small population. Mr. President, 50,200 people are without work. They are searching for work. They are searching for answers. They are searching for help. We have to provide the help, and then the long-term answers.

Job losses in Rhode Island are occurring in all sectors. This is not just one area of economic endeavor that is under stress. Every area is under stress. Workers in manufacturing plants have been particularly hurt, and that is another consequence or another aspect of this discussion of the support for the auto industry. We have thousands of jobs in Rhode Island that in

some way depend upon the auto industry. So their fate is linked to what we do effectively, constructively to assist these companies to maintain their presence, but also to change their practices so they are not only here for a few more months, but they can evolve into a sustainable manufacturing industry that will lead the world, as it once did, in the manufacture of high-quality, economically, and environmentally sound vehicles.

We are seeing layoff notices in the financial and services industries despite all the efforts we have made to support these industries through the legislation we passed last September. These losses are from small mom-and-pop manufacturing shops in Rhode Island and go up into national financial companies that are shedding workers.

This is a problem that must be addressed. We have done it in the past. In 1991 and 2002, Congress worked with the White House to successfully extend temporary benefits when unemployment rates were significantly high. In June, I was pleased that Congress came together and passed a 13-week emergency extension of unemployment insurance for all States. This was an important step to help desperate families make ends meet. But jobs are becoming scarcer. The action we took in June has actually been overtaken by events in the world marketplace.

We have to deal with this issue, particularly in those States such as Rhode Island that are seeing unusually high unemployment rates. So far, 4,416 Rhode Islanders have already exhausted their federal benefits. They are still searching for work, unsuccessfully, but now they have lost the support of unemployment insurance.

There are 20,000 Rhode Islanders who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits. In the first week of November, another 1,347 Rhode Islanders were added to our State's unemployment rolls. These are very dispiriting numbers. They call for action, and I hope we can act.

Nationally, it is estimated that nearly 1.2 million Americans will exhaust their current benefits by the end of the year. Where do they go? They have no direct financial support through the unemployment compensation program. They have seen the value of their homes whittle down to, in some cases, less than the mortgage they owe. They are seeing pressures in every area. Unless we provide them some assistance, their ability to simply keep their heads above water--to keep their families fed, to keep a bit of hope alive--will be extinguished. We cannot let that happen.

These benefits are not handouts. These people have worked. They have paid into the program. They receive a modest weekly benefit to keep them close to making ends meet.

There is something else too. We have a task before us not simply to deal individually with men and women who have worked hard and now-- through no fault of their own, through the action of the huge economic forces worldwide--find themselves without jobs. We have to get this country moving again. We have to stimulate the economy.

Unemployment insurance helps do that. These benefits are spent right away in the local communities. These benefits are going to people who are not going to, unfortunately, be able to put it away for a rainy day. Today is their rainy day. They are going to have to go to the supermarket. They are going to have to go to the pharmacy. They are going to have to go put some gas in their automobiles to get around, to get their families around. This money is spent almost immediately on food, medicine, and gasoline. Economists of virtually every stripe believe this is one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy, to increase consumer demand.

This is something we have to do. It generates approximately $1.64 in gross domestic product per $1 spent. So for every dollar of unemployment compensation benefits, we are generating additional support.

In September, I introduced bipartisan legislation to provide an additional 7 weeks of unemployment insurance to people who have exhausted their benefits, and 13 more weeks of benefits to unemployed workers in States such as Rhode Island that have unemployment rates above 6 percent.

Despite the urgent need for these extra benefits, a minority of Senators prevented this bill from moving forward. What we have seen since that date is not an improvement in the situation but a significant deterioration in the situation. We can no longer ignore acting on this critical issue.

Today there are more disturbing numbers. There is an indication also in the press that President Bush would sign a bill, but he cannot sign a bill unless we pass a bill. We have the opportunity to do that before we leave today. Since the economy continues to unravel, we cannot sit back and wait. We have to act.

In October, the House overwhelmingly passed a measure virtually identical to my legislation. We must do the same. I hope we take this action this week. We cannot wait until January. There will be more people without jobs, unfortunately, by January, and those who are having the opportunity to collect benefits bill exhaust those benefits by January. We have to act.

We have to do more than just an unemployment insurance program. We have to focus on other forms of relief that will provide not only help to Americans but stimulate our economy, such as funding for food stamps and food banks. Families are turning more to these institutions every day. It is not just the marginal American, someone who might be on the street struggling with mental health issues, who needs the assistance of those institutions. More and more families--working families--are coming to food banks and asking for a handout, for food, to feed their children.

We can do better, and we must do better.

We also have to make investments to improve job creation and provide long-term benefits. I think this means investing in our infrastructure, putting people to work, putting people to work to rebuild this country, not in a transient, temporary fashion but in projects that will last beyond this economic crisis.

When I was a child in Rhode Island, walking around on the sidewalks, looking down, I would ask my mom and dad: What is this plaque: ``WPA''? Well, it is the Work Projects Administration. That was from 1935, 1934. Well, in 1955, in 1958, in 1968, and, indeed, in 1998, and now in 2008, walk around, look at those facilities, those public infrastructures that are still serving the communities. They were investments to help people work, but investments that have spurred this economy for more than 60 years.

We have to do a lot, and we can do a lot. There are so many needs here: aging infrastructure, roads, bridges, public transportation systems, transit systems so people can get to work and get to school, drinking water systems and wastewater systems.

In Rhode Island, proposed funding for these initiatives would support $50 million for road improvements. Some of the discussions we have had about a package--$50 million for road improvements. It would also support $14 million for transit operations which would assure transit operations for particularly the poorest citizens of Rhode Island. It would also support $19.1 million for water infrastructure projects.

Across this country, these projects could generate more than 470,000 jobs. We are losing about 500,000 jobs, it seems, every reporting period. If we could reverse that and report an increase in jobs, that would not only put a lot of money into people's pockets and families' pockets, but it would also send a signal to the country that confidence can be restored, that hope can indeed be engendered.

Finally, I believe we need to provide some funding for the States and communities that are strapped by this crisis. We are looking at severe deficits. States are looking at them. Many States do not have the ability to operate beyond a balanced budget. They are going to have to make excruciatingly difficult cuts. I think we should put more money into our matching Federal Medicaid programs which will help States and help people receive health care. These investments, again, are not only compelling because of the needs of our fellow Americans, but justified because of their ability to stimulate the economy and to pick us up and move us forward.

Events over the last several months have dramatically highlighted the economic challenges we face. We are grappling with the most severe economic

downturn we have seen perhaps since post-World War II and perhaps since the Great Depression--the worst set of economic circumstances. We must do something. To sit back and watch Americans continue to lose hope, to lose their jobs, to lose their sense of the potential of this country is unacceptable. We need swift action. No more debate; we need to vote. We need to pass an unemployment compensation extension bill before we leave today.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for morning business be extended until 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

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

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

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise this morning to recognize and pay tribute to several colleagues who are concluding distinguished careers in the Senate. These gentlemen have distinguished themselves. They have dedicated themselves to representing their States and representing the best interests of the Nation.

Pete Domenici

Senator Pete Domenici is an individual who has worked many years to strengthen our country in so many different ways. He has been a key member of the Committee on Energy and Water, and he has been a key member of the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee.

He was first elected to the Senate in 1972--36 years of outstanding service to the Nation and to his State of New Mexico.

He will be remembered for many things but particularly for his unswerving commitment to mental health parity in the health care system. It is fitting that legislation we passed will bear his name, along with that of Senator Paul Wellstone. Senator Domenici's advocacy for those with mental illness, his understanding of these issues in a profoundly personal way, accounted for the momentum and ultimately the success of the legislation. I commend him and thank him for his service.

Larry Craig

Senator Larry Craig, with whom I had the privilege to serve on the Committee on Appropriations, is someone who has vigorously defended his positions in the Senate. We have disagreed more often than agreed, but our debates have been both vigorous and civil. I can recall managing the legislation, Senator Craig on the opposing

side, with respect to issues of guns and firearms. I recall a debate that was vigorous, robust but principled. I appreciate that effort and his service.

Wayne Allard

There are three Senators with whom I have had the opportunity to serve closely. They are people I respect immensely and wish the best to as they go forward. Wayne Allard and I came to the Senate together. We were in the House of Representatives together. We have served on both the Armed Services Committee and the Banking Committee together. It seems, indeed, that on the Banking Committee, we were either the subcommittee chair or ranking member, depending on who has the majority, throughout our career in the Senate. In that effort, we worked closely with Senator Allard and his distinguished staff on issues with respect to homelessness, housing programs, many areas of endeavor. He has been a distinguished individual who has done a great deal, not only for the State of Colorado but for national housing policy and for many other areas of endeavor.

On the Armed Services Committee, I had the privilege of working with him. He applied his energy and efforts to clean up the Rocky Flats plant, a nuclear facility in Colorado. He has made a lasting and extraordinary contribution to his State through those efforts. I commend him for all those. I wish him well as he goes forward.

John Warner

Senator John Warner was my chairman on the Armed Services Committee. Frankly, he represents the model of a Senator. His integrity, judgment, and decency resonate throughout this Chamber and will make a lasting impression on this body. He has served Virginia with distinction. He has particularly served the men and women of our Armed Forces with distinction and unfailing dedication. Part of that comes from his own experience. As a young man he joined the Navy and then later was in the Marine Corps. His own experience, later amplified by his service as Secretary of the Navy, left an indelible impression upon him. That impression is the fact that all the great decisions made in Washington ultimately must be borne by young men and women who serve in uniform. He has never forgotten that. He has never forgotten that decisions we make play out in the lives of soldiers and sailors, marines, airmen, and their families. That unfailing sense of obligation to these young Americans is a profound contribution he has made.

He is also someone who on many occasions has defied the current tides of popular opinion. I recall that when the deplorable incident surrounding Abu Ghraib broke, there was a sense in some quarters that we should try to avoid mention of that, that we should minimize the issue. Senator Warner recognized we couldn't do that, that we owed it to the men and women in the Armed Forces to look at the issue carefully so it would not be repeated, to ensure that it was, as it truly was, an aberration in the otherwise extraordinary dedication of our forces, not just to the military profession but to the ideals of decency that have been the hallmark of the American fighting man and woman throughout our history. His efforts there will be ruled as a remarkable display of placing the needs of country and respect for the institution of the military above any partisan political concerns. He is someone who has made a huge contribution. Again, that contribution will resonate throughout the history of this country, particularly the history of the Senate.

Chuck Hagel

Finally, let me pay tribute to a dear friend and colleague. We entered the Senate together 12 years ago. Senator Chuck Hagel has represented Nebraska with rare insight and extraordinarily good humor for 12 years. He is one of those individuals who is respected and liked by everyone because he is an extraordinarily decent person, someone who takes his job seriously but himself not so seriously. He is someone I have had the privilege to travel with across the globe--Russia, Afghanistan, Singapore, the Philippines, northern Africa, and back again to Afghanistan and Iraq. He, too, has a rare dedication to the men and women of the armed services, born of his own personal experiences. As a young man he chose not only to join the U.S. Army but to serve in Vietnam. He had the opportunity to be posted to Germany. He would have served out his time and left. But he decided he had to march to the sound of the guns. His brother was already there. Together in the same unit, he and his brother served the U.S. Army. He was wounded in action, received the Purple Heart. He came back as a veteran and continued his education and then built a very successful business career. But he never lost sight of those men and women who serve in uniform. He is very active in the USO. He is someone who was active in veterans affairs. Then, finally, when he was elected to the Senate, he took his learning, his experience and appreciation and played a major role on the Foreign Relations Committee. His commitment to a broad multinational policy of using our alliances, of building our power not just through our military power but through diplomatic and reputational power has made a significant contribution to the country, not just for the moment but for many years. He is leaving the Senate to pursue other endeavors. I wish him well. He has been a remarkable friend. He, Lilibet, and their children, Allyn and Ziller, are a remarkable family. I will miss him particularly. I salute him, thank him. He, to me, is the very model of a Senator who has served his country in different ways and now has chosen to continue to serve in other ways. I am sure he will continue to contribute to the country.

To these Members, I wish them well. I thank them personally for their kindness to me and their thoughtfulness on so many other occasions.

Mr. President, I rise also to speak about a very important topic, and that is the need to enact legislation to help unemployed Americans amid the current economic downturn. Yesterday, we passed an unprecedented package of support for the financial markets. There are many Americans who are suffering as grievously as our financial markets and those who work in the financial markets. There are an estimated 800,000 unemployed workers who will begin to run out of emergency unemployment compensation because jobs are too scarce in the current economic climate. We cannot turn our back on these 800,000 Americans. We need to help them. In June, I was pleased by the inclusion of 13 weeks of emergency unemployment compensation to all States in the war supplemental spending bill. This help was critical and something I had advocated for a very long time.

Too many individuals in our States who have been unemployed are still looking for work, but they can't find it and they are running out of benefits. The labor market continues to deteriorate. This impact is becoming magnified as a result of the continued unravelling of the financial marketplace. We are seeing--in fact, one of the reasons we acted last evening--credit markets seize up. We are seeing auto sales lots not able to finance the acquisition of cars and buyers not able to buy automobiles. We are seeing a host of problems that manifest themselves in GDP statistics, unemployment statistics, and in the lives of ordinary Americans it is manifested in the stark reality of no work and a family to support. We have experienced the eighth straight month of job declines. Unemployment has soared to a 5-year high of 6.1 percent; 16 States now have an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent or greater. New national unemployment numbers for September will be released tomorrow morning. It is expected that these numbers will continue the downward trend, given the sustained notices of plant closings, mass layoffs, and cutbacks for small businesses trying to survive in this environment. In my State of Rhode Island, the situation is more bleak: 8.5 percent are jobless right now. It is the second highest level in the Nation, a jump of over 3.4 percent in the course of the last year alone. We are hemorrhaging jobs in Rhode Island. It is the highest unemployment rate in Rhode Island since November 1992.

In addition to this evaporation of jobs is the acceleration of prices. Gasoline, food, and health care costs are all accelerating. Families are caught in a tremendous squeeze. That is why I am pleased to have introduced bipartisan legislation, which has been cosponsored

by more than 20 of my colleagues, including the chairman of the Senate HELP Committee and the Finance Committee, Senators Kennedy and Baucus, to extend unemployment insurance benefits so people can pay their bills while they look for work. This measure provides 7 weeks of federally funded unemployment insurance for individuals who have exhausted their benefits, and it provides 13 additional weeks of benefits to unemployed workers in States that have been hit particularly hard by this economic downturn, States that have unemployment rates above 6 percent. Right now 17 States would qualify for this high unemployment figure.

The bill also includes a provision to help qualifying States, such as Rhode Island, replenish their unemployment insurance trust funds which help cover a portion of unemployment insurance benefits. The Senate stimulus package that failed last week included these same provisions to extend unemployment insurance. We need to take aggressive steps to help these families who are struggling to make ends meet. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting this legislation.

I was prepared to ask consent to pass this legislation, S. 3507, today, but I understand there is an objection by the minority. Passage of this legislation is vital. Since it appears there will be a lameduck session after the election, I will work with my colleagues to bring this legislation, if possible, to that lameduck session to get it passed. We have to help these Americans.

In summary, if we could afford to authorize $700 billion last evening to assist financial forces to unclog credit markets, to begin to provide support for the economy, then we certainly can afford to help individuals who are looking for work and can't find it and are desperate. It is only right. I hope we can do that when we return.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I say to him, thank you very much. Let me express my appreciation for your extraordinary assistance and help and collegiality. I wish you well. You represent the very highest traditions of integrity, dedication and decency and I wish you well. Thank you.

Mr. President, middle-class families are being squeezed financially. They feel that the economy and the Government are just not working for them.

The vast majority of Americans are unhappy with the direction President Bush has led us over the last 8 years.

For most of the last decade there has been far too little oversight of the financial marketplace and too little help for the middle class.

I share that frustration. I have voted time and again for common sense tax cuts for the middle class, developing alternative sources of energy, like solar and wind power, greater investment in our roads and bridges, improving our schools, and expanding health coverage for children, new regulations to protect consumers, a responsible end

to the war in Iraq and a host of other important initiatives, but the sad reality is that time and again those efforts have been dashed by filibusters and vetoes by the President and his allies.

But as real as that frustration is, the economic situation requires us to act swiftly and responsibly.

The choice now is to act on this bill or watch as this economic crisis makes the already difficult economy even worse. If we fail to act, there will be more impacts on the lives of an already struggling middle class--job losses, pension losses, and an ever harder time paying for college.

That is why we must act, and that is why we must pass this legislation.

When this proposal was first unveiled, it was little more than a blank check, and I know the people of Rhode Island were outraged just like me.

But this proposal is vastly different.

Gone is the blank check.

In its place there are strong protections for the taxpayers, a greater likelihood of success, better oversight, and, most importantly, a chance for a return on this investment in stabilizing the economy.

When the President sent us his blank check, it was clear that we needed to make sure we followed the same principle anyone follows when they lend money which is that you get paid back. That is why I fought and got bipartisan support for a provision that ensures taxpayers do not remain exposed to all of the risks of this program by requiring if you participate in this taxpayer-funded program, that taxpayers get a piece of your future profits through a share in the profit of the assisted company.

This device, known as a warrant, is nothing new, and it can be very effective. In fact, in the Chrysler loan guarantee, warrants were used and resulted in a profit to the Government and in turn the American people. Warrants were also a part of the successful effort to revive the airline industry after 9/11. Most recently, Warren Buffett included them in his deal with Goldman Sachs last week, as did the FDIC in its recent brokering of the purchase of Wachovia by Citibank.

Warrants allow the taxpayers to get their money back and more if a participating company rights itself. In other words, as the company's stock goes up--as it should over time--taxpayers get to participate in that appreciation and even enjoy a reasonable premium.

No one will be shocked to learn that the President and Wall Street opposed my idea for warrants. But when faced with the simple fact that any Wall Street business transaction would exact no less of a price, protecting the taxpayer won and the special interests lost.

There are no guarantees that the assets purchased under this program will eventually appreciate, though that is certainly our hope, but at the very least warrants help safeguard the taxpayer against losses on those assets that underperform.

It is only right to ensure that the taxpayer not foot the bill for this rescue plan because the point of this economic rescue plan is to provide liquidity throughout our credit markets, not to line the pockets of those looking to make a buck on the backs of the taxpayer.

We also said ``no'' when it came to the President's proposal to spend all these funds with zero oversight and transparency. Now, there is a clear requirement that all of these arrangements are transparent and above board. Moreover, there will be a panel of outside experts who must report to the Congress and the American people on the Treasury Secretary's use of these funds and submit a regulatory reform plan in January 2009 so we can work on new laws to prevent a similar case of market failure. And, we included provisions to ensure that no-bid contracts are not awarded, contracting rules are followed, conflicts of interest are prevented, and courts have the authority to review any questions about this law.

And, we took a strong first step when it comes to the excessive pay of too many executives on Wall Street who got us into this mess. Indeed, under this bill, there will be no golden parachutes for those executives who helped create this financial crisis. Instead, they will see those sweetheart deals go away, and, indeed, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the FBI have launched investigations into many of these questionable financial transactions.

Lastly, we should not overlook that this bill also extends a number of tax cuts that will generate investments in alternative sources of energy and green job creation as well as a tax cut for approximately 92,000 middle class Rhode Islanders who would otherwise face the Alternative Minimum Tax.

This bill is necessary, but not perfect. It should be stronger when it comes to impacting those who got us into this mess, and it should contain some of the consumer and investor protections and accounting reforms I have called for over the years. There should be more resources to prevent foreclosures, not to aid people who took out a mortgage they should not have, but to protect the property values and stability of those neighborhoods facing a growing number of foreclosures.

If we don't follow up this vote with increased transparency and better regulations of the financial marketplace, we could very well find ourselves debating another economic rescue package in the not too distant future.

Indeed, I have held eleven hearings over the last year and a half in an effort to bring these regulation and accounting issues to the attention of my colleagues and the administration. These may have seemed like arcane hearings to many, but the reality is those who were supposed to enforce the rules of the marketplace and protect the economy were asleep at the wheel, or worse, blinded by a misguided ideology that over-relies on deregulation. Time and time again, witnesses at these hearings said everything was okay or was at least manageable. They said we should not have hearings and that less oversight and regulation would cure any problems. Now, two of the companies that testified don't even exist. The status quo is unacceptable, and I am hard at work on legislation to reform oversight of Wall Street because the current system failed.

The bill is prompted by a systematic failure by all the financial regulators who turned a blind eye to the problems that had been identified well before this crisis erupted.

Reckless and irresponsible business decisions brought us here, but lax oversight and poor risk management by regulators also played a starring role.

No one is happy that we have to act, but we need to act to avoid further damage to our economy. The task before us now is to protect people's jobs and retirement savings, and do our best to craft a solution to the credit crisis that prevents our economy from grinding to a halt.

The question must also be asked: How can we prevent this from happening again?

The administration found that it could no longer control events. Instead, events controlled the administration as credit markets have stubbornly remained frozen and banks still refuse to lend to each other. Small businesses are finding it harder to get credit, as are consumers.

No one takes lightly voting for a $700 billion package, even with taxpayer protections I and my colleagues built into it. These sophisticated institutions and complex instruments impact very concrete, everyday assets, from homes to retirement savings. We must act now to protect these important assets.

Fundamentally, this is about protecting the savings and well-being of all Americans and providing access to capital and credit for businesses and governments to make investments in our future.

The Senate has taken the first step and I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss my vote against the India Nuclear Agreement.

In 2006, I voted in favor of the Henry J. Hyde United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act, primarily because of the safeguards included in the act that would ensure that assistance to Indian's civilian nuclear program to meet its domestic energy needs, would not assist the Indian nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act that we voted on last night has the full scope of necessary protections.

India is the largest democracy in the world. Its economy is growing by 8 percent annually. Their domestic energy needs are enormous and they simply do not have enough indigenous resources to meet them. India is an important ally and our nation has benefitted from a strong trade and defense relationship for decades. Furthermore, my State of Rhode Island has prospered because of a vibrant Indian community. I believe that the United States should do all that it can to assist India and further strengthen the partnership between the two countries.

However, our country's relationship with India must be balanced with concerns about nuclear proliferation and the stability of the Middle East and Asia.

I believe that proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons material and technology is the greatest threat facing our country today. The most effective method of controlling such proliferation is a multilateral regime where all countries are subject to the same standards.

The agreement that was approved by the Senate last night establishes a separate and unique regime for India. This particular agreement would allow India to be treated like a nuclear weapons state but not impose upon India the responsibilities and commitments placed on other nuclear weapons states. As such I believe that this particular agreement is flawed. This agreement has the potential to actually weaken the carefully constructed, long-standing nuclear nonproliferation regime that the world depends on to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

This agreement does provide some benefits. Under this agreement India will put 14 of its nuclear reactors under safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. This will help to ensure that these reactors and the fuel supplied to them will be used only for the peaceful production of nuclear poser. In addition the IAEA will bring its expertise to help to improve the operational safety of the reactors.

On the other hand the rest of India's nuclear reactors will not come under the IAEA and these reactors can be used as India wishes to produce power or to produce more material for nuclear weapons. But it is troublesome to me that India retains the right to deny IAEA access to some or all of the reactors that it has now agreed will come under IAEA agreements.

While this agreement will help India with its energy needs, India is also now free to use its limited indigenous uranium for to support a build up of its nuclear weapons stockpile. India has specifically preserved its ability to increase the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal, its ability to increase the amount of nuclear weapons materials that it produces and its right to conduct a test of a nuclear weapon.

While India has a voluntary moratorium on testing, India still refuses to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to support a fissile material cut-off treaty. Finally, I am greatly concerned about the effect this agreement will have on the region, particularly the reaction of Pakistan. Pakistan will undoubtedly seek a similar agreement if it perceives an increased threat from India. Pakistan may seek to partner with China--and the United States would have few grounds to protest. In such a case, Pakistan will have additional access to nuclear technology.

While I believe that the United States should help India with its urgent energy needs, I believe we missed an opportunity to provide assistance with adequate and necessary safeguards in place. For these reasons, I reluctantly decided to vote against this agreement. It is my hope that the United States and India continue to work together to make the world safer from nuclear proliferation.

Madam President, first let me commend Senator Dodd for his extraordinary leadership and also my colleagues Senators Conrad, Baucus, Gregg, Schumer, Corker, Bennett, and our colleagues in the House, particularly Barney Frank and Spencer Bachus. Last Thursday, under the direction of Chairman Dodd, we worked on a bipartisan and bicameral basis and sketched out the outline of the bill we have today. We reacted to the blank check presented to us by the Treasury Secretary. We provided detail. We provided oversight. We provided protections for taxpayers. Now, this much-improved proposal has now come to this floor for a vote. I hope we can support it.

We are in the midst of a terrible economic crisis. The American people are justifiably outraged that they have been put in a position where they must essentially contribute $700 billion to stabilize our financial system and, indeed, the global financial system. They are also outraged that this is the result of lax oversight over many years. It is a result of indifference to the plight of homeowners and workers, because they have seen very little in terms of real, tangible support from this administration with respect to their problems and concerns, such as making a decent living, educating their children, and providing for health care for their families.

But we have to act, and we have to act decisively. Because what is threatened here is the welfare not just of a few but of all Americans. What is at stake is their financial welfare and their financial future.

It would be nice to say this proposal is a cure but, frankly, it is a tourniquet for a hemorrhaging economy. If we don't apply this tourniquet today, the chances of reviving the economy and restoring it are diminished dramatically. I believe we must act along the

lines outlined by Senator Dodd and our colleagues in the Senate and the House. If this problem were only restricted to Wall Street, this would be a different bill. But every American feels the effect of this financial crisis, from the value of their pensions, their investments, and their overall wealth. It has spread beyond Wall Street and is affecting Main Street and the credit markets that are so central to everything we do. Auto sales are plummeting this month because credit is difficult to obtain. That means our car companies are facing an additional hurdle in terms of keeping thousands of Americans employed in good jobs. The cost and availability of college loans will be impacted if the credit crisis continues. The cost of small business expansion will increase. There are homeowners who are rushing to closings and discovering that the loan has been pulled because the banks won't lend. Their affairs are in disarray. We have to act and we have to act smartly.

What we have seen over the last several weeks and days is a deterioration in the financial and credit markets, and we have to counter that. The plan presented to us by the Secretary of the Treasury was virtually a blank check: Give me $700 billion and I will take care of things.

We would not accept such a blank check. We insisted, first, that there be an oversight mechanism so the Secretary's actions were not the only actions in terms of sound policy moving forward. Then we insisted, at my suggestion and the suggestion of others, that we provide for an equity interest that the taxpayers would receive in those companies that participate in this program. There would be an equity participation with warrants, so that taxpayers share in the recovery of these companies, not just the shareholders and executives of these companies. That is not only fair, it is sensible. When you assume risk on Wall Street, you get paid to do so. The American taxpayers deserve their share from the risk they are bearing. This is an improvement.

In addition, we addressed an issue that is critical to all hardworking Americans; that is, imposing restraints on excessive compensation of some executives.

However, we have to do much more. In fact, as soon as we conclude this debate, Chairman Dodd will organize hearings so that we can get on with another fundamental responsibility--the restructuring of the regulatory framework for banking and finance. Part of that includes reviewing executive compensation and ensuring that shareholders have a say in compensation decisions. That is just one aspect of an elaborate agenda of reform that has to be undertaken. To stop now and simply provide support to the current crisis without a refinement and a rebalancing of our regulatory structure would be a terrible miscalculation on our part. We have to move forward.

In addition to the efforts underway today, we have to renew our focus in providing an approach to regulation that is sensible, sound, and does not interfere with innovation and ingenuity, but does not result in the indifference and lack of oversight that is a large part of this problem.

There are other aspects within this bill we need to address. First, there is language with respect to mark-to-market accounting rules. What we have done is affirmed the SEC's authority to enforce proper accounting practices. I hope, in response to this crisis, that we do not abandon the principle of mark-to-market accounting rules. Essentially what some people are urging is that we cook the books because we have a huge problem. In other words, let's make it go away with accounting techniques. That is how we got into this situation. To use that approach is adding, in my view, insult to injury. I hope we can maintain strong accounting standards and work our way through this problem without sacrificing these standards.

There is something else we have to recognize. We have to do more to help Americans who are facing foreclosure. It is only through helping the homeowners that we will we get to the bottom of the crisis.

I thank the chairman for his kindness and leadership on this bill.

Mr. President, I would like to ask of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Development a question.

Is it Chairman Dodd's understanding that the definition of a financial institution in section 3(5) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act includes the holding companies of such institutions described as ``any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer or insurance company''?

Section 113(d) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act states that warrants should be issued for companies that sell their assets to the Secretary, under the requirements of the section. Is it Chairman Dodd's understanding that if a company selling such assets is a subsidiary that is not traded on an exchange but that has a holding company or parent that is traded on an exchange, that the stock of such holding or parent company would be referenced in the warrant?

If I could ask one more question of the chairman, certain off-balance sheet entities or affiliates may sell troubled assets to the Government, to include but not limited to structured investment vehicles, qualified special purpose entities, special purpose entities, conduits, shell companies, and other legal entities. Is it the case that such entities or their holding or parent company would be required to enter into warrants with the Government?

I ask unanimous consent that a detailee to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Robert Lee, be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of this session.

Mr. President, I introduce today the Research, Hazard Intervention, and National Outreach for Healthier Homes Act. I am introducing this legislation because decent and safe housing is possibly one of the most critical determinants of our overall health and well-being. Indeed, where we live greatly affects how we live.

A June 2006 report from the World Health Organization entitled ``Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments,'' found that environmental exposures contribute to almost one-quarter of the disease burden worldwide, resulting in millions of preventable deaths each year. Through scientific research, we know that an individual's environment can lead to cardiovascular disease, asthma, and lead poisoning, as well as many other diseases and conditions.

The connection between housing and health is not a new idea. Many of our nation's earliest housing standards resulted from the concentrated slum housing around factories and in big cities during the Industrial Revolution. And, after World War II, a national housing policy was declared in the National Housing Act of 1949, stating that there should be: ``a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family.'' These early housing standards regarding ventilation, sanitation, occupancy, structural soundness, lighting, and other habitability criteria greatly advanced our nation's public health.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention the passage of the Lead- Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act in 1991, which has helped dramatically decrease lead poisoning in children over the past 15 years. This law required the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to establish and implement procedures to eliminate lead hazards from public housing.

In 1992, controls on lead-based paint and lead exposure were further enhanced by Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act. Title X defined ``hazard'' in such a way that it included deteriorating lead paint, and lead-contaminated dust and soil that the lead paint generates. It also mandated the creation of an infrastructure that would help reduce lead paint hazards in our nation's housing.

Federal efforts regarding lead poisoning are a wonderful example of a federal investment in housing that has produced significant benefits to our society while minimizing cost.

Unfortunately, the conditions of today's worst-case housing looks only modestly better than it did a century ago. Now, we must determine the role that the government can and should play in stimulating the creation of truly decent and safe housing nationwide in the 21st Century.

We can learn from some of our state and local governments about how to proceed. In my own state of Rhode Island, the State Department of Health and the City of Providence code enforcement division offers quarterly training on the identification of housing hazards. Trainees walk through homes with a standard assessment survey and evaluate them for different environmental hazards, what has been fixed and what needs to be repaired or improved.

The Rhode Island Department of Health Family Outreach Program works in conjunction with the state's universal screening program to target Rhode Island children, from birth to age three, who are at-risk for poor developmental outcomes. Families with children identified as ``at- risk'' are contacted by a provider in their area and are offered a home visit by a multidisciplinary team of nurses, social workers, and paraprofessionals. Home visitors also serve as the neighborhood follow- up for services.

We need to take advantage of some of the best ideas that are currently underway to make our homes and communities healthier. It is for this reason that I am introducing, the Research, Hazard Intervention and National Outreach for Healthier Homes Act, which seeks to encourage and develop healthy housing initiatives in the public and private spheres.

The major purpose of this bill is to enhance and coordinate federal healthy housing initiatives. Such coordination should reduce duplication in federal efforts and ensure sufficient data collection regarding both the housing conditions and the health problems in our country's housing stock.

Specifically, the bill would provide statutory authority for HUD's Healthy Homes program, expand the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's current lead program to also address healthy housing issues, where appropriate, and establish the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Children's Health Protection as the center for the EPA's healthy housing efforts.

It would also create a new Health Hazard Reduction competitive grant program at the EPA and HUD. Applicants must already be recipients of a federal grant through an existing federal program such as the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, weatherization assistance, low-income home energy assistance, or the rural housing assistance programs. After the first three years, the EPA and HUD would evaluate the grant program's effectiveness by taking into account the aggregate health, safety, energy savings, and durability benefits resulting from the program. The CDC and the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) current coordinated training activities on housing-related hazards would also be expanded and evaluated.

In addition, the bill would expand national outreach about housing hazards through a combination of market-based incentives, the expansion of existing initiatives, and educational media campaigns. For example, the EPA would evaluate and promote health protective products, materials,

and criteria for new and existing housing and create a voluntary labeling program that would provide these items with a ``Healthy Home Seal of Approval''. The CDC, the EPA, and HUD would pool their resources to establish a national media campaign to raise public awareness about hazards in housing.

While our nation and nations around the world grapple with important social, economic, and international policy questions, we must keep in mind the important role healthy housing plays in all of these issues.

Scientific research has begun to unlock some of the connections between housing, community development, and health outcomes. The Research, Hazard Intervention, and National, Outreach for Healthier Homes Act will help us start working to a time when every family has an affordable, decent, and healthy home. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and other healthy housing efforts.

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

Mr. President, I introduce today the Research, Hazard Intervention, and National Outreach for Healthier Homes Act. I am introducing this legislation because decent and safe housing is possibly one of the most critical determinants of our overall health and well-being. Indeed, where we live greatly affects how we live.

A June 2006 report from the World Health Organization entitled ``Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments,'' found that environmental exposures contribute to almost one-quarter of the disease burden worldwide, resulting in millions of preventable deaths each year. Through scientific research, we know that an individual's environment can lead to cardiovascular disease, asthma, and lead poisoning, as well as many other diseases and conditions.

The connection between housing and health is not a new idea. Many of our nation's earliest housing standards resulted from the concentrated slum housing around factories and in big cities during the Industrial Revolution. And, after World War II, a national housing policy was declared in the National Housing Act of 1949, stating that there should be: ``a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family.'' These early housing standards regarding ventilation, sanitation, occupancy, structural soundness, lighting, and other habitability criteria greatly advanced our nation's public health.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention the passage of the Lead- Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act in 1991, which has helped dramatically decrease lead poisoning in children over the past 15 years. This law required the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to establish and implement procedures to eliminate lead hazards from public housing.

In 1992, controls on lead-based paint and lead exposure were further enhanced by Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act. Title X defined ``hazard'' in such a way that it included deteriorating lead paint, and lead-contaminated dust and soil that the lead paint generates. It also mandated the creation of an infrastructure that would help reduce lead paint hazards in our nation's housing.

Federal efforts regarding lead poisoning are a wonderful example of a federal investment in housing that has produced significant benefits to our society while minimizing cost.

Unfortunately, the conditions of today's worst-case housing looks only modestly better than it did a century ago. Now, we must determine the role that the government can and should play in stimulating the creation of truly decent and safe housing nationwide in the 21st Century.

We can learn from some of our state and local governments about how to proceed. In my own state of Rhode Island, the State Department of Health and the City of Providence code enforcement division offers quarterly training on the identification of housing hazards. Trainees walk through homes with a standard assessment survey and evaluate them for different environmental hazards, what has been fixed and what needs to be repaired or improved.

The Rhode Island Department of Health Family Outreach Program works in conjunction with the state's universal screening program to target Rhode Island children, from birth to age three, who are at-risk for poor developmental outcomes. Families with children identified as ``at- risk'' are contacted by a provider in their area and are offered a home visit by a multidisciplinary team of nurses, social workers, and paraprofessionals. Home visitors also serve as the neighborhood follow- up for services.

We need to take advantage of some of the best ideas that are currently underway to make our homes and communities healthier. It is for this reason that I am introducing, the Research, Hazard Intervention and National Outreach for Healthier Homes Act, which seeks to encourage and develop healthy housing initiatives in the public and private spheres.

The major purpose of this bill is to enhance and coordinate federal healthy housing initiatives. Such coordination should reduce duplication in federal efforts and ensure sufficient data collection regarding both the housing conditions and the health problems in our country's housing stock.

Specifically, the bill would provide statutory authority for HUD's Healthy Homes program, expand the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's current lead program to also address healthy housing issues, where appropriate, and establish the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Children's Health Protection as the center for the EPA's healthy housing efforts.

It would also create a new Health Hazard Reduction competitive grant program at the EPA and HUD. Applicants must already be recipients of a federal grant through an existing federal program such as the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, weatherization assistance, low-income home energy assistance, or the rural housing assistance programs. After the first three years, the EPA and HUD would evaluate the grant program's effectiveness by taking into account the aggregate health, safety, energy savings, and durability benefits resulting from the program. The CDC and the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) current coordinated training activities on housing-related hazards would also be expanded and evaluated.

In addition, the bill would expand national outreach about housing hazards through a combination of market-based incentives, the expansion of existing initiatives, and educational media campaigns. For example, the EPA would evaluate and promote health protective products, materials,

and criteria for new and existing housing and create a voluntary labeling program that would provide these items with a ``Healthy Home Seal of Approval''. The CDC, the EPA, and HUD would pool their resources to establish a national media campaign to raise public awareness about hazards in housing.

While our nation and nations around the world grapple with important social, economic, and international policy questions, we must keep in mind the important role healthy housing plays in all of these issues.

Scientific research has begun to unlock some of the connections between housing, community development, and health outcomes. The Research, Hazard Intervention, and National, Outreach for Healthier Homes Act will help us start working to a time when every family has an affordable, decent, and healthy home. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill and other healthy housing efforts.

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

Mr. President, today we celebrate the 221st anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States, the longest- living written constitution in history and the very foundation of our democracy. I thank Senator Byrd for his tireless commitment to the Constitution and to ensuring its recognition every year on Constitution Day, which he established in 2004.

Our Constitution serves as a testament to the brilliance of the Founding Fathers, who sought to create a document that would ensure that political power was derived from the people and that their rights would never be infringed upon. The Framers worked diligently over the summer of 1787 to forge a document that has persisted for more than two centuries. The Framers rightly understood that it would take hard work and compromise to establish a solid foundation for a new government that aspired to protect the liberty of all its people. A remarkably brief document, containing only seven articles, the Constitution limits the power of the government, maximizes the freedom of the people, and provides for the common good.

Although my home State of Rhode Island did not send delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the effects of this small State on the formation of the Constitution are still felt today.

Roger Williams, whose statue stands just outside this Chamber, founded what would become the State of Rhode Island in 1636 after he was exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. A theologian, he founded Providence Plantation on the principles of separation of church and state and religious freedom.

One hundred fifty-one years later, the Framers enshrined these same principles in the Bill of Rights. Williams and the Framers recognized that religious freedom is a natural right that had to be afforded to all people. Indeed, this freedom is one of the defining freedoms of our democracy.

I would again like to thank Senator Byrd for his dedication to honoring our Constitution and the achievements of our Founding Fathers. His devotion to this document enriches our understanding of its importance and reminds us of its essential role in our democracy. He has taken up the call to protect and defend the Constitution by ensuring that its central place in American history is not forgotten. I join him in asking all Americans to honor our great national charter today and every day.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)