Floor Statements

Madam President, today I pay tribute to the men and women in the 3rd Brigade, 98th Division, 108th Training Command in Lexington, KY, for receiving the 2008 Department of Defense Reserve Family Readiness Award.

For those who are not familiar with this award, it recognizes National Guard and Reserve units who have displayed exceptional family readiness, while sustaining superior military readiness. This award was created in 2000 to recognize these outstanding military units.

The men and women of the 108th Training Command in Lexington have shown that they value each and every family of their unit and remain committed to maintaining healthy relationships at home while they serve elsewhere. The U.S. military is the greatest fighting force in the world. I am proud that the best of the best hail from the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating the 108th Training Command for their distinguished accomplishment. They truly make Kentucky and the entire country proud of their service.

Madam President, today I invite my colleagues to join me in congratulating four northern Kentucky firefighters for receiving awards from the Northern Kentucky Firefighters Association: Darlene Payette of Independence, Richard Messingschlager of Kenton County, Clayton James of Newport, and Larry Cappel of Covington.

These brave firefighters have dedicated their lives to helping other people, and each is deserving of their prestigious award. Each award speaks of the character of these individuals.

Darlene Payette received the Emergency Medical Service Award for her actions at Summit Medical in Nicholson during a full arrest in April 2008. During this situation, Ms. Payette's leadership and professionalism allowed her to resuscitate an individual under extreme circumstances.

Richard Messingschlager was awarded the Chief Officer of the Year. His lifelong contributions to firefighting in Kenton County, northern Kentucky, and the Commonwealth serve as an inspiration to firefighters across the State.

Clayton James received the Firefighter of the Year award for demonstrating leadership during the September wind storm and using the recent training he received to set up the National Incident Management System for Newport. His acts led to bringing fire, police, public works, and utility companies together under one command center.

Larry Cappel was honored with the Fire Prevention/Education and Safety Award for his inventive approaches of teaching fire prevention and safety to residents of Covington.

I am humbled and grateful that these citizens serve the people of the Commonwealth, and I know their coworkers are proud to work alongside of them.

Madam President, I would like to thank these individuals for their contributions to the State of Kentucky, and I wish them well as they continue to protect our citizens.

Madam President, for the last month the attention of the Senate has been focused on the Nation's economic troubles. However, while this is very important legislation, my attention has also been focused on the thousands of Kentuckians who were impacted by the ice storm in my State.

This storm caused the greatest electrical outage in Kentucky history, with over 600,000 people losing power and forcing many to evacuate their homes. Of the 120 counties in Kentucky, 91 were forced to declare a state of emergency. In response, the Kentucky governor was forced to call up 4,600 National Guard troops to assist our first responders. This was the largest mobilization of the Guard in our State's history. This situation could have been much worse if not for the efforts of Kentucky's public safety officials and the Kentucky National Guard. These individuals worked around the clock to ensure that their neighbors had the help they needed during this crisis.

There are many stories of people going beyond the call of duty to assist their fellow citizens. National Guard units went door to door to ensure that people had all the supplies they needed until power was restored. Volunteers kept open shelters and soup kitchens to make sure families had places to sleep and eat. All of these unsung heroes have my respect and admiration.

In closing I am grateful for the efforts of all the first responders across my State including the many volunteers from the Salvation Army, Red Cross, and countless other volunteer organizations that helped to limit the devastation caused by this storm. While I wish that this disaster had never occurred, I am very proud of the way all Kentuckians banded together to support each other during this time of need.

Madam President, I would like to congratulate several outstanding young people from the Commonwealth of Kentucky who have been selected as recipients of the 14th annual Prudential Spirit of the Community Award. These young people were selected from over 20,000 nominees, and I would like to commend them on this wonderful achievement.

The Prudential Spirit of the Community Award was created in 1995 by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals. The awards are meant to impress upon all youth the value of community service and to recognize contributions made in this area. This year I am very proud that Kentucky has two State honorees and four distinguished finalists.

The four distinguished finalists this year are Don Combs, Emily Goldstein, Arooshi Kumar, and Elizabeth Moore. Don is from Pikeville, KY, and was nominated by Pikeville High School because he started a recycling program that now encompasses all schools in Pike County. Emily Goldstein is a senior at Atherton High School in Louisville, and she volunteered over 1,000 hours of her time to help protect the environment. She started recycling programs at 12 local companies and donated the proceeds to the Louisville Zoo. Arooshi Kumar is also from Louisville and is completing her senior year at Dupont Manual High School. For her service project Arooshi raised nearly $5,000 to help establish schools for impoverished children in India. In order to raise this impressive sum Arooshi made and sold jewelry, cashmere stoles, and Indian tunics. Elizabeth Moore of Catlettsburg created a Spanish section in the Hatcher Elementary School library. Elizabeth chose this school because it has the largest number of Spanish-speaking students in her school district. Elizabeth is a senior at Fairview High School in Ashland, KY.

The two State honorees from Kentucky are Jordan Campbell and Meg Olash. Jordan is a senior at Montgomery County High School and resides in Jeffersonville, KY. For his project, Jordan organized a student-run nonprofit theater company to help engage elementary students in the arts. His efforts resulted in 85 children and 15 teen directors putting on shows for the community that sold over 1,200 tickets. Meg is an eighth grade student at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School in Louisville. Meg helped refugees plant produce, which they in turn sold at a farmers market at her church. Meg, along with her fellow volunteers, also spent 3 days of the week playing with children at the local refugee community center.

All of these young Kentuckians have my admiration, and I thank them for their service. They demonstrate that with hard work and perseverance all of us can make a difference in our communities and make them a better place to live.

Mr. President, we are in a period of morning business, up to 10 minutes?

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the conference report to the so-called stimulus bill. While we have not seen the actual bill, the outlines of the final agreement are available, and not much has changed from the bill since it passed the Senate earlier this week. The bill will still cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years after interest on the borrowed money necessary to finance the bill is added. This is $1 trillion added to our national debt and $1 trillion we have to take away from our American workers in the future to pay off that debt. That is why the bill also raises the limit on the national debt to over $12 trillion. That is almost a $2 trillion increase in the national debt.

But $1 trillion of new debt is not the whole story. Many of the tax and spending provisions in this bill last only a few months or years. The President and many in Congress have promised to extend those provisions or even make them permanent. Obviously, that means the cost of the bill as written does not show the true cost of the changes it puts in place. In fact, in a letter sent yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office said that when you add in the cost of extending the programs the President has promised to extend, the total cost of the bill over the next 10 years is actually $2\1/2\ trillion. Add the interest on that $2\1/2\ trillion of new debt, and the bill will cost the taxpayer $3.3 trillion over the next 10 years. That is $3.3 trillion we will have to tax our children, my grandchildren and your grandchildren, and our neighbors.

It is true the conference report is a bit smaller than the House- passed bill, so those numbers will have to be figured again when the final language is available, but they are close enough to understand the massive size of this debt spending bill.

If all this new debt spending would actually fix the economy and create jobs, it might be worth it. But that is not what is going to happen. Even the Congressional Budget Office agrees with that. In another letter they sent yesterday, they said the bill will reduce--you heard me right--reduce GDP over the long term. They also estimated it will lower wages over the long term because Government spending now will take money away from productive use by the private sector later.

We cannot spend our way out of this crisis. The solution to the crisis that was created by too much debt is not more debt, and America cannot afford to waste several trillion dollars. If we really want to stimulate the economy, we need to focus our attention on tax cuts for individuals, investments, and businesses. We need to enact legislation that will have a direct and immediate impact. We need a bill that will create more jobs through targeted tax relief, not a bill that will spend money on programs that offer no immediate or long-term return to the American taxpayer. We could have done that on this bill, but the majority refused to work with the minority to craft a truly bipartisan bill. In all of Congress, there were only 3 members of the minority who supported this flawed spending bill, and 3 out of 218 does not make this a bipartisan bill.

I hope the actual bill is made available with time for Senators and the American public to examine it before we vote. I cannot support the conference report that has been described by the House and Senate leadership, and I hope we can do better the next time.

I ask unanimous consent that the two letters from the Congressional Budget Office that I mentioned earlier be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I wish to submit a question to the Senator from Iowa.

I ask Senator Grassley, is it accurate to say that my State of Kentucky will get an additional $92 million in Medicare funds if the Senator's amendment passes; if the amendment fails, that money would go to California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York?

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I would like 10 minutes.

Ten minutes for Senator Bunning.

The Senator can give whatever time he chooses to the other side.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 531.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, our economy is ailing--everybody knows that--and the symptoms are a sharp drop in consumer spending and a large rise in unemployment. As many of my colleagues have already observed, this bill treats the symptoms only and it does it so ineffectively.

There are some Democrats, even in the White House, who agree with this. Just the other day, one House Democrat said his leadership ``does not care'' what is in the bill; ``they just want to pass it and they want it to be unanimous.'' They don't care. That is just shameful.

The unemployment statistics we are seeing are just staggering. Never in our history have we seen job cuts at the rate and severity we are seeing today: over 500,000 losses per month for the last 5 months. Over 600,000 in losses were reported just last Tuesday.

This bill really does very little to help businesses keep people employed. It gives the poorest Americans $500 in cash and the prospect of a government job on a construction site, but it does not get to the heart of the problem in the private sector.

It is our responsibility on behalf of every child who will pay for this massive amount of spending in this bill to get the solution right, and we can do better, much better.

One of the best economists in this country--one who predicted this crisis in advance--said recently that he believes most U.S. banks are insolvent. Their equity has been wiped out due to the massive leveraged bets related to housing. Unfortunately, bank regulators, such as Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke, and Alan Greenspan, failed to properly assess the danger to the economy presented by these irresponsible bets.

Many experts are now acknowledging what I have said for years: that currency manipulation by China and other countries fueled the credit bubble in the United States and Europe that drove up housing prices to unsustainable levels.

As a direct result, many households are now insolvent as well. They are carrying mortgage debts that exceed the value of their homes, and even with the $500 from the make work pay credit, they will not go out and spend it until the problem is addressed.

This amendment I am offering today will address a major injustice in the Tax Code that many taxpayers will encounter for the first time this year. This problem will drive the effective tax rates of many taxpayers to European confiscatory levels at the worst possible time. I am referring to the limit on capital losses.

Since the peak of the markets in 2007, investors have lost $7.5 trillion in wealth. More than half of this amount is in taxable accounts. If we do not adjust the limits, taxpayers will be unable to deduct real economic losses

from their income tax, and this will result in higher effective tax rates.

Two respected economists have recommended my amendment as a way to stimulate the economy. In an article in the Wall Street Journal titled ``Let's Stimulate Private Risk Taking,'' economists from Harvard University and the University of Chicago wrote that my amendment would stimulate risk taking by rewarding the downside of new investments and increasing the upside.

I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mr. President, since 2007, investors have lost $1.7 trillion in stock market values. Nearly half these losses are taxable accounts and their owners are subject to a $3,000 limit on capital losses.

The way this limit works is that no matter how much money you lose in stocks or real estate, you are only allowed to deduct $3,000 per year against other income. The remaining loss is ignored.

Given the state of the markets, millions of taxpayers have stock losses that far exceed $3,000. Nevertheless, the Tax Code will treat these people as though they earned much more during the year.

For an example, a family that earns $100,000 and pays $30,000 in Federal and State taxes has a tax rate of 30 percent. If the family loses $40,000 in savings and it is only able to deduct $3,000, it will push the family's effective tax rate up to 48.5 percent.

The $3,000 fixed limit on capital losses was last adjusted in 1976. Before the midseventies, the tax writers in Congress were not as knowledgeable about what inflation can do to savings as we are today. It was common for Congress to write dollar limits into the Tax Code without any thought of what inflation would do to its value in future years. Since 1977, inflation has eroded the value of the limit by more than 71 percent. My amendment would adjust the limit for inflation, increasing it to $15,000 for any losses incurred this year.

When I offered this amendment in the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus committed to addressing the problem on a permanent basis sometime this year. I welcome this opportunity to work with him on this long-term overdue problem.

My amendment also reduces the cost of the bill by about $4.9 billion because I am also striking a remarkable provision that for the first time would allow corporations to use tax credits even if they have no income. This is nothing more than corporate welfare and Soviet-style industrial policy. Never before has this body endorsed a refundable tax credit for corporations. This one costs a staggering $10.9 billion. It is bad policy and the money should be spent on broad-based individual tax relief that will stimulate our economy.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to ensure that taxpayers do not experience an increase in tax rate in the depth of this recession we are now in.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over 30 years ago, in 1976, Russell Long stood right here where we are today and voted for legislation that set the capital loss limit at $3,000. President Gerald Ford signed the bill into law. That was a long time ago, and Senator Long and President Ford are both gone.

What is the legacy we will leave for future generations? The bill we are considering today will pile a staggering amount of debt on their shoulders--more than $1 trillion. But let's at least do some good here. At a time when the stock market is down 40 percent from its highs, when $7.5 trillion in paper wealth has been destroyed, there is a crying need to update the 30-year capital loss limit. We have a rare opportunity to fix a longstanding problem with the Tax Code at a time when economists say the change is also good policy.

It will stimulate the economy by encouraging private risk taking. When investors take risks, the economy expands, and the fear we are experiencing will be dispelled.

I urge you to vote for the amendment.

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

May we understand what the modification is?

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 242.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I have three amendments. Since there are so many amendments, I am going to only offer one at this time. It is an amendment I have offered on the floor numerous times on major bills. It has something to do with a serious problem that 12 million American seniors face every year. My amendment puts more dollars in seniors' wallets, which will hopefully stimulate the economy by giving them more expendable income.

My amendment would suspend for just 1 year, the year 2009, the increased tax on Social Security benefits that Congress passed in 1993. I have been a strong advocate for eliminating this tax entirely for many years. My amendment would give seniors a 1-year break from this unfair and punitive tax.

Let me start with a little background. Historically, Social Security benefits were not taxed by the Federal Government at all. However, in 1983, the Nation was facing an immediate shortfall in the Social Security Program, with the trust funds possibly running out of money in the next couple years. Acting on the recommendations of the Greenspan commission, Congress passed a law in 1983 that began taxing Social Security benefits for the first time. The new law required that 50 percent of a senior's Social Security benefit or Railroad Retirement benefit be taxed if his or her income was above $25,000 or $32,000 for married couples. This tax, over the past 26 years, has been dedicated to shoring up the Social Security system or the Railroad Retirement system.

In 1993, when I was a member of the Ways and Means Committee in the House, Congress was faced with a similar problem. This time it was the Medicare trust fund that was going broke. Once again, Congress called on American seniors to help fix this program by instituting another additional tax on Social Security benefits. In 1993, Congress passed a law that required 85 percent of a senior's Social Security benefit be taxed if their income was $34,000 for a single person or $44,000 for a couple.

As a Member of the House in 1993, I thought this tax increase was grossly unfair to our senior citizens. On one hand we tell seniors to plan for retirement and on the other hand we tax them for doing that. CRS estimates that there are 12 million seniors paying this tax on 85 percent of their Social Security benefits.

Also, since the income levels are not indexed to inflation, many more seniors become burdened each year as we go forward and inflation rises.

My amendment is very simple. It gives seniors a break for 1 year from paying this tax. While I would love to see this tax permanently repealed, suspending it for 1 year is a start and a stimulus to get money into the pockets of our senior citizens so they can help stimulate the economy. It would help do it immediately, by allowing millions of seniors to keep more of their Social Security benefits. With wild fluctuations in gas prices and increases in health care and food costs, this tax relief could make a difference to millions of seniors across this country.

The amendment holds the Medicare trust fund harmless so the solvency of Medicare is not jeopardized. The amendment is paid for by reducing discretionary spending in the bill, except spending for veterans.

In the past, many of my Senate colleagues have supported sense-of- the-Senate amendments to remove this unfair tax. Today, Senators will have an opportunity to vote on actually giving seniors relief and removing this unfair tax for just 1 year, 2009. It is the fair thing to do. I hope my colleagues can support this amendment and support over 12 million seniors who are forced to pay this unfair tax.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my amendment is simple. It suspends for the year 2009 the tax increase on Social Security benefits that Congress passed in 1993. This increase taxes seniors above certain income levels on 85 percent of their Social Security taxable income. We should not be in the business of taxing Social Security benefits. It is unfair, and it is punitive.

CRS estimates that at least 12 million seniors pay this tax. This amendment holds the Medicare trust funds harmless. Joint Tax says the amendment scores at $14.4 billion, so I reduce discretionary spending in the bill, except spending for veterans, by the necessary amount.

Now is the time to fix this problem at least for 1 year. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable portion of the Budget Act.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I need about 7 or 8 minutes.

All right. I will not argue with the Senator from Vermont.

I rise today to discuss the nomination of Eric Holder to be U.S. Attorney General. Unfortunately, I cannot support his nomination to this post.

While Mr. Holder certainly has the experience and credentials that one would want to see as head of the Department of Justice, his judgment is lacking. As a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, Mr. Holder approved several controversial pardons.

First, I wish to mention the case of Marc Rich. At the close of the Clinton administration, a pardon was issued for this infamous fugitive financier. Mr. Rich was charged in the early 1980s with 51 counts of tax fraud for evading more than $48 million in taxes.

He was also indicted for conducting illegal oil deals with the Iranian Government at the time Iran was holding 52 U.S. citizens hostage. Mr. Rich then fled the country and allegedly renounced his U.S. citizenship to avoid extradition. This was enough to land him on the FBI's ``Ten Most Wanted List.''

Mr. Holder's recommendation on this pardon of Mr. Rich was ``neutral, leaning favorable.'' Accounts indicate he did this without consulting the prosecutors handling the Rich case in the Southern District of New York. His willingness to push this pardon ahead is troubling, to say the least.

The second questionable pardon involving Mr. Holder concerns 16 members of the terrorist group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation, better known as FALN. This radical group supports Puerto Rican independence and was labeled as a terrorist group by the FBI. Between 1974 and 1983, FALN claimed responsibility for more than 120 bombings in the United States. These bombings killed six people and injured many more.

Mr. Holder overturned previous denials of clemency for these terrorists. The pardons were also opposed by two U.S. attorneys who prosecuted FALN cases, and by the FBI. According to the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Holder even overruled the Office of the Pardon Attorney at the Department of Justice. In fact, Mr. Holder never reached out to opponents of this clemency or one family of the victims. The son of a man killed in an FALN bombing first learned about the pardons from reading the newspaper.

I am also very concerned about Mr. Holder's views on second amendment rights. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was consistently vague and would not answer directly on questions regarding the second amendment.

I find this to be unsettling and unsatisfactory. However, past statements and actions indicate a nominee who has shown hostility toward the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court decision last year in the Heller case reaffirmed that the second amendment is an individual right, and Mr. Holder opposes this decision. He seems to hold the view that gun possession is not a right, as the Heller case confirmed, but more a privilege or hobby that needs to be strictly regulated.

Mr. Holder is supportive of old ideas for gun control that have never proven to make people safer at the expense of taking away their rights. He has indicated he will favor licensing and registering all gun owners, a policy I do not think will sit well with Americans.

Lastly, the Attorney General of the United States is the Nation's top law enforcement official. He cannot pick and choose which of our rights he will defend and which ones he will overrun. His views on the second amendment make me very wary of his confirmation to this great position he is being considered to be confirmed to. Coupled with his handling of the Clinton era pardons, I think this nomination is very worrisome. It is unfortunate, but I cannot support this nominee. I will be voting against his confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am not entering into this debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hatch's amendment be set aside so that I may offer another amendment.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 74.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Collins from Maine and Senator Hatch from Utah be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

I appreciate their support.

When SCHIP was created, I supported the bill and felt it filled a need in our health care system. The bill focused on providing health insurance to low-income children whose parents made too much money to qualify for Medicaid but did not have private health insurance.

Many States have done a good job of keeping the focus of their SCHIP programs on low-income children, including Kentucky that only covers children below 200 percent of poverty. However, other States have expanded their SCHIP programs to cover children in families most of us would not consider low income. Some States are even covering adults, including parents and childless adults. These expansions erode the original intent of the program.

The Baucus SCHIP bill we are considering today further expands the SCHIP program, including allowing States to cover children in families up to 300 percent of the poverty level. That is $66,000 of income a year for a family of four.

Personally, I think 300 percent is too high for SCHIP, and the focus of this reauthorization bill should be reaching those kids who are currently eligible for the program but are not enrolled.

The Baucus bill also allows States choosing to cover children above 300 percent of poverty to still get Federal money for their efforts but only at their lower Medicaid matching rate, not the higher SCHIP matching rate.

Two States--2 out of 50--however, get a special exemption under this bill and will get their higher SCHIP matching rate for covering children above 300 percent of poverty, specifically New York and New Jersey.

New York wants to cover families up to 400 percent of poverty or that is $88,000 a year for a family of four. New Jersey currently covers families up to 350 percent of poverty or $77,000 a year for a family of four.

These are certainly not low-income families, and I feel strongly the States should not get additional Federal money for covering families making up to $88,000 a year.

My amendment is fairly simple. It simply removes this exemption for New York and New Jersey so they have to play by the same rules all the other 48 States play by. If they go above 300 percent of poverty, they get their Medicaid matching rate but not the higher SCHIP rate.

As I have said, I think 300 percent is too high, and if I were writing the bill, I certainly would not allow States to get any Federal money if they were covering families over 300 percent of poverty. However, that is not the bill before us. So my amendment tries to equalize the playing field between the 50 States and be a little more fiscally responsible with taxpayers' dollars.

Under my amendment, New York and New Jersey can still choose to cover children above 300 percent, they just will not get the higher SCHIP matching rate. If the people in New York and New Jersey want to cover families making up to $88,000 a year, they should be the ones paying for the coverage, not requiring my citizens in Kentucky and other citizens in all the other 48 States across America to foot the bill.

Finally, my amendment takes the savings from reimbursing New York and New Jersey at the Medicaid matching rate and directs that money to more outreach and enrollment dollars so we can get everybody who is eligible for SCHIP enrolled. We are having difficulty doing that. Kentucky only has 85 percent. I do not know how much some of the other States have. But we ought to be able to get to 100 percent of coverage. The other money that is saved by that would allow them to seek out those eligible children under SCHIP.

The SCHIP reauthorization should be about making sure low-income children who are eligible for SCHIP are covered, not about covering children in families making up to $88,000 a year.

So with my amendment, you have two options: more money for outreach and enrollment and requiring all States to play by the same rules or requiring the people of your State to pay more taxes so that New York and New Jersey can cover families who make $77,000 or $88,000 a year.

To me, the choice is simple, and I hope the other Members of the Senate can support my amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment, No. 74.

Mr. President, when I have a chance during the 2 minutes of debate, I will explain what the modification is.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Amendment No. 47

Mr. President, I have had to modify my amendment slightly because CBO says directing more money to outreach and enrollment creates a score. So I have taken the outreach section out.

However, the amendment is still very simple. It removes the exception for New York and New Jersey to cover families above 300 percent of poverty and get the highest SCHIP matching rate. Instead, they would get the lower Medicaid matching rate covering these families like every other State in the Union. So you have a choice today: Require the people of your State to pay more taxes so New York and New Jersey can cover families who make $77,000 or $88,000 or treat every State the same.

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

Mr. President, today I congratulate the members of the Warren County Prevention Partnership, an antidrug group that represented the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the 2009 inaugural parade. I was pleased to learn that such an outstanding organization represented Kentucky on the national stage.

The Warren County Prevention Partnership holds the distinct honor of representing Kentucky in three consecutive Presidential inaugurations: 2001, 2005, and 2009. The Warren County Prevention Partnership works for a drug-free America and its ``Reach for Your Dreams'' antidrug and antiviolence program is motivated to help America achieve that goal.

I am proud that such a superior association represented Kentucky on such a historical day in our Nation's history, and I support the organization, as well as others that strive for a drug- and violence- free country. I hope that this recognition assists the Warren County Prevention Partnership in getting its message heard by all Americans.

Again, I congratulate the members of the Warren County Prevention Partnership on their remarkable feat of representing Kentucky in the past three inaugurations. I hope that its accomplishments inspire others to work for a drug-free America.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Carolyn E. ``Betsy'' Flynn of Benton, KY, for her recent appointment to the Federal Reserve Board's Consumer Advisory Council.

Mrs. Flynn currently serves as president and vice chairman of Community Financial Services Bank in Benton, KY, which manages around $400 million in assets. This institution has served the Benton community for almost 120 years and Mrs. Flynn has contributed to its success since 1976. For 24 years, Betsy Flynn has also instructed at the Barret School of Banking in Memphis, TN. Her public service record is extensive as well. She has served on several economic development boards, the city council, the chamber of commerce, the tourist commission, and has recently been appointed to the Kentucky Investment Commission.

The Consumer Advisory Council serves a vital role in advising the Federal Reserve Board on guidelines under the Consumer Credit Protection Act and issues regarding consumer financial services. Mrs. Flynn's impressive resume provides a solid foundation for her new role on the council. Her expertise in the banking and financial industry will serve her and the advisory council well.

I now ask my fellow colleagues to join me in congratulating Mrs. Flynn for her remarkable achievement. Kentucky and the entire country should be proud to have such a distinguished individual serving them.