Floor Statements

Yes, I will.

That is acceptable.

I have a few things I would like to comment on.

Yes.

Mr. President, it has been a long night. It is called an ambush. That is what happened. The consent that I was assured of was going to be that the Senator from Illinois offer the same--I am going to get it right--30-day extension without an offset. He was going to offer it, and I was going to have a chance to object. We weren't going to stand around for 3\1/2\ hours debating the issue. That is the understanding I had with the leader of the Democrats.

Now, I don't know what I have for tomorrow. I have been assured that the Senator from Illinois will offer the same amendment tomorrow morning, and I will have a chance to object, if I so choose. But I want to assure the people who have watched this thing until a quarter of 12, I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9 o'clock. It is the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina, since they are the only team that has beat Kentucky this year. All of these things that we have talked about and all the provisions that have been discussed, the unemployment benefits, all these things, if we had taken a longer version of the jobs bill that was mutually agreed on, a bipartisan bill that Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley agreed on, that the Senator from Nevada, the leader withdrew his support from and brought his own narrowly scoped bill to the floor, $10 billion was not paid for, $5 billion was--so we have $10 billion immediately after we passed pay-go last week, so we have a $10 billion bill we talked about early on that just passed and now we have an extension--by the way, the Baucus-Grassley bill was totally and completely--it is debatable, according to the Senator from Illinois, but it was paid for--CBO said it was paid for, but at least that is what Joint Tax said, too, because I happen to be on the same committee with those two gentlemen--we would not have spent 3 hours-plus--almost 3\1/2\--telling everybody in the United States of America that Senator Bunning does not give a damn about the people who are on unemployment; the doctors whom I represent that I did not want to extend SGR; all of the other things--COBRA, flood insurance, small business loans, and small business provisions.

I feel sorry for the people in Kentucky who live in east Kentucky who may lose their Satellite Home Viewer Act for a day or two because they will miss all those Senate commercials that are going on. I know how they desperately want to watch those, but if they do not have cable, they will not be able to do it.

But this debate could have been completely changed had not the other side rammed through a bill, a partisan bill, over a bipartisan bill. You cannot preach bipartisanism and practice partisanship. I do not give a darn how good you are at conning people, people see through it. If you think I am kidding, go into your State and ask. The American people understand what is going on up here. That is why the Congress and the Senate have a 30-percent approval rating. Even the President of the United States is higher than that, and his is not good because it is below 50 percent.

But I have served in this body and over in the House--I have not had as long; I have had 2 years shorter than the House service of the Senator from Illinois and 2 years shorter than the Senator's Senate service; so I have spent 12 and 12, 12 years here and 12 in the House-- and we are not conning the people in the United States about anything. They know what is going on. That is why they are madder than heck. They are tired of Senators who talk out of both sides of their mouths. They are tired of people who have been appointed to positions who come before the Congressional committees and do not speak the truth. If you think the Tea Party people are crazy, get them involved in your Senate race or get them against you when you are running.

Remember now, this all could have been changed had not the leader of the Senate decided that a bipartisan compromise jobs bill was not as important as his partisan jobs bill that just passed right before all this debate.

I just want to tell the people who have watched--and I doubt if there are many right now--that I am as interested in all those things I have objected to because of no offsets as the people who have spoken on the other side of the aisle or my good friend from Tennessee or my good friend from Alabama.

This body should be and can be better than it has been. In my 24 years of service, I have never seen the Congress of the United States perform as badly as we are performing presently. And it shows up. Bipartisanship means input from both sides--not talking about it, doing it. That is the whole difference in what we have had here tonight. We did not even have to have this debate. Thank you.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 36, H.R. 1586; that the amendment at the desk, which is the text of the Reid substitute, with an offset, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Go ahead.

Mr. President, I would like to go back past the original bill we just passed for the extension for a year and explain what my amendment did to the original text the leader was propounding. I paid for it, and I paid for it out of stimulus money.

We passed in this body just last week a pay-go that is extended to all the bills that come through this body. We passed a bill earlier this week on which we did not do pay-go. We did not pay for it--at least $10 billion of it. The cost of these extensions is another $10 billion. That means that $20 billion goes directly to the debt of this country.

We just extended the debt limit to over $14 trillion. The reason I offered the offset that the leader objected to was so that my 40 grandkids don't have to pay the bill. We cannot keep shifting our spending to our kids and our grandkids.

Believe me, I want to extend those provisions just as badly as the leader does, but we need to pay for them. That is the reason I offered my substitute to his original text.

Unspent stimulus funds.

Mr. President, I ask for time to speak.

I have been here 24 years, I say to the Senator from Nevada.

And I have been fooled by some things and some things have gone past me and I woke up after it had already passed me. This is not one of those things that was going to do that. Of course, we can have a vote on it, and, of course, it can be defeated, and then, of course, we can pass the bill without the money. I am not willing to risk that $10 billion being added to the deficit. I was not ready to risk voting on a bill I knew would not get the amount of votes necessary to pay for it. If the majority leader would have included it in his UC, I would have had no problems. But he did not include it in his UC. So that was the reason I asked to pay for it.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote 20, I voted ``no.'' My intention was to vote ``aye.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today in the Senate to pay tribute to the Campbellsville University Lady Tigers of Campbellsville, KY. On December 5, 2009, the Lady Tigers Volleyball team won the National Christian College Athletic Association Division I Women's Volleyball National Championship in Kissimmee, FL.

For the coaches and young women on this team, this is not just a trophy; it is an affirmation that anything is possible with hard work and determination. These young women defeated the top-seeded Mount Vernon Nazarene University to complete an eight-match win streak. Furthermore, this national title is the first national team title for Campbellsville University. Every single player on the team contributed to this remarkable feat and several individual records were set. The Lady Tigers finished the season with a 38-13 overall record.

Not only are these young women excellent athletes, they also exemplify the great academic tradition of Campbellsville University. To earn this national title while measuring up to the high academic standards of Campbellsville University shows the dedication and work ethic these women possess.

I am very proud of the accomplishments these young women have made. I now ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the members and coaching staff of the Lady Tigers for their success. Campbellsville University and the Commonwealth of Kentucky are fortunate to have such distinguished representation. These young women are role models for all student athletes.

Mr. President, is the pending business still the health care reform bill?

Mr. President, Republicans and Democrats alike agree that Congress needs to look at ways to reform our health care system. Too many Americans are uninsured, underinsured, or cannot afford the health insurance they have.

Reforming health care, which amounts to over 17 percent of our gross domestic product, is no easy task, and it is a process that should not be rushed. I believe Congress should move in an incremental approach to reforming health care. We are restructuring one-sixth of our national economy with this bill, and we should be darn sure we know what we are doing. I believe Congress should work in a bipartisan way to draft reform legislation instead of working in secret behind closed doors.

I support measures such as passing medical malpractice reform, allowing small businesses to band together to buy insurance, and allowing individuals to buy insurance across State lines. These strategies will help lower costs, make insurance more affordable, and increase coverage. That should be the goal of health care reform, and we can do this without putting Washington bureaucrats and Members of Congress in control of our health care. This seems like a win-win situation to me.

I also support the bill introduced earlier this year by Senators Coburn and Burr called the Patients' Choice Act which reforms the health care system. This bill helps States establish State-based exchanges, helps low-income families with health care costs, and improves health care savings accounts. I have heard members of the majority party claim that Republicans don't have a health care plan. They couldn't be more wrong. We just don't have a 2,000-plus page bill as they do that will drive up premiums, cut Medicare by $\1/2\ trillion, and raise taxes on all Americans. We just don't have a bill as they do that costs $2.5 trillion and will threaten the future of our children and grandchildren as they struggle to pay the debts we are leaving them.

I wish to take a few minutes to explain my concerns with the bill that Senator Reid has laid out before us. Unfortunately, it is hard to even know where to start. As I said, this bill is over 2,000 pages long. Its table of contents--the table of contents--is 13 pages long. It was written behind closed doors by a small group of handpicked people by the majority leader, so most of us in the Senate, and the American people, had no idea what was in it before it was released. For a majority party that billed itself as being transparent, they certainly failed in writing this bill.

The bill we have before us changes the way health care is delivered in this country. It will affect every American regardless of whether they have insurance, regardless of whether they are satisfied with their insurance, or even if they are on Medicare. We need to make sure we know what we are doing and know what the long-term consequences are of any changes we make. At this point, I am not confident that we do.

This bill will cost $2.5 trillion over 10 years when fully implemented. It raises taxes by almost $\1/2\ trillion. It cuts almost $\1/2\ trillion from the Medicare Program. Yet it still leaves 24 million people uninsured. The bill jeopardizes the ability of Americans to keep their own doctor and will lead to the rationing of care.

The recent recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on breast cancer screening should be a wakeup call to all Americans about Washington bureaucrats meddling in their health care. Under this bill, health care premiums will rise, 5 million Americans will lose their employer coverage, and 15 million more will be added to Medicaid and the CHIP program. I think this is a move in the wrong direction.

Medicaid often underpays medical providers for treating patients which makes it hard for doctors who want to treat these patients and hard for patients to find doctors to treat them. We should be finding ways to help people better afford private insurance, not simply adding them to the public dole. This bill puts Washington bureaucrats and Members of Congress in control over many aspects of our health care which should scare everyone within the sound of my voice.

For example, starting in 2014, Washington will require most Americans to prove they have health insurance or pay a penalty tax. The penalty will be phased in over a couple of years, but in 2016, the penalty will be $750 per person with a maximum of $2,250 for a family. These amounts are indexed in future years, however, so the penalty will continue to increase.

If you aren't in one of the bill's special exemption categories, you will have to prove that you and your family have insurance when you sit down to fill out your taxes. If you don't, then you will get to send Uncle Sam an additional $750 or $2,250 on April 15.

I know the authors of this bill will try to argue that since their bill leads to nearly universal coverage, most Americans would not be affected by this tax. That couldn't be further from the truth. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper, this bill leaves 24 million Americans uninsured. Twenty-four million Americans without insurance is not ``universal coverage'' or anything close to it. Also, Members of Congress are going to be telling people what type of insurance they have to buy, and we will not even be giving every American access to the cheapest plan on the market.

The bill requires that only four types of health care insurance can be offered in the exchange: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum. All the plans would have to offer certain benefits and meet certain criteria. However, the bill creates a special catastrophic plan for only special groups of people: those under the age of 30 and those who don't have affordable coverage. It doesn't matter that many more people want this level of coverage. If they aren't under 30 or meet some type of income eligibility test, they are just out of luck.

Catastrophic coverage is the right type of coverage for many different types of Americans, including singles, younger people, and the healthy. It is very likely to be the cheapest plan affordable on the exchange. Think about this: a young woman in her thirties, she eats right, she exercises, doesn't smoke, takes good care of herself. She wants a catastrophic plan, and it is all she needs. Under this bill, she couldn't buy into the catastrophic plan because of her age. Members of Congress tell her she isn't entitled to the cheapest plan on the market because she is too old. She is in her thirties. Or think of the 29-year-old male who has been enrolled in this catastrophic plan in his early twenties. On his next birthday, the Federal Government has a big birthday surprise for him. He will get kicked out of the insurance plan he has enjoyed for years and will be forced to join a more expensive health care plan. That is a wonderful birthday gift.

I don't think Congress's role is to require all Americans to buy insurance. I don't think Washington bureaucrats and elected Members of Congress should be dictating what health care options are available for the entire country.

I understand the importance of insurance. I think everyone should have insurance, but I don't think it is the Federal Government's responsibility to force people to buy it or micromanage what insurance looks like.

This bill also makes huge cuts in Medicare which will affect every senior. The bill cuts--and we have heard it many times today--$465 billion from the Medicare Program. These cuts would not be used to shore up the Medicare Program which will be insolvent in just about 8 years. Instead, these cuts will be used to fund new government spending. This move further jeopardizes the viability of the Medicare Program.

I know AARP and the American Medical Association are trying to tell seniors these cuts will actually be good for the Medicare Program and the program would not be harmed, but let's be honest. When you think about it, does it really make any sense? Congress is going to cut $465 billion from a program that is already facing bankruptcy, and it will somehow make it stronger? If you believe that, I have some oceanfront property to sell you in Arizona.

Under this bill, hospitals will be cut, nursing homes will be cut, health home agencies will be cut, hospices will be cut, and Medicare Advantage programs will be cut. By cutting the reimbursement rate for providers, they are making it harder for seniors to find medical providers to treat them. Plain and simple: Seniors will have the same benefit, but if they cannot find anyone to treat them, then their benefits don't do them any good, do they?

I have to tell my colleagues there isn't one medical provider who walks in my office each year who is happy with their reimbursement rate under Medicare. I cannot think of one. Hospitals are not happy. The doctors are not happy. Hospice care providers who provide such valuable services to dying Americans and their families are not happy. No one is happy.

What do you think is going to happen to these reimbursements when the cuts go into effect? How happy will the providers be then?

Another problem with this bill is the creation of a government plan. I can say I do not support a government-run plan in any form. I have already described the significant problems with Medicare and Medicaid. Creating a new government-run health program will lead to the same sort of problems that plague these plans.

I fear it will eventually undermine private insurance enough so we are left with a single-payer, government-run system. I have been in Congress long enough to know it will be a disaster for this country.

Finally, this bill imposes an unprecedented tax increase on Americans. The tax hikes in this bill would start hitting Americans next year, while the spending and benefits will not start, in many cases, until 2014. That is how the majority is hiding the true cost of the bill--using 10 years of tax hikes to offset 6 years of spending.

Everybody knows tax increases are deadly in a fragile economy. But that is not preventing the majority from pushing through $\1/2\ trillion in tax hikes in this bill. In further defiance of logic, these tax increases will actually drive up the cost of health care. I was under the impression the goal of health care reform was to reduce costs, not increase them.

As I mentioned earlier, if you have the misfortune of being uninsured, you will be further punished under this bill by paying a penalty tax. If you are an employer that hires a low-income worker and cannot afford to provide health insurance, you probably will be punished with a penalty tax. If you are an employer that offers retirees prescription drug coverage, your taxes will go up. If you have extremely high medical costs and use itemized deductions for medical expenses to defray your costs, your taxes will go up. If you use a flexible spending account, health reimbursement account or health savings account for over-the-counter medicines, your taxes will go up. If you have a flexible spending account, it will be capped and then probably disappear in a few years because of the high-cost plan tax, so your taxes will go up.

This bill also creates a new marriage penalty in the Medicare payroll tax and uses the money to pay for a brandnew entitlement program. It also imposes a new tax on cosmetic surgery. If a family is forced to liquidate a health savings account because of tough economic times, the government will confiscate even more money.

The bill also imposes new taxes on brand-name drugs, medical devices, and health insurance, all of which will increase health care costs and drive up premiums. Now that the government has succeeded in driving up premiums, the government will hit you again by taxing high-cost insurance policies. It makes perfect sense--drive up the cost of insurance premiums with new taxes and then tax them again for being too costly.

We could have health care reform that reduces health care costs for families and businesses. We could have health care reform that didn't raid $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare. We could have health care reform that allows people who like the coverage they have to truly keep it. We could have health care reform that doesn't drastically expand government spending on health care or push people into government programs. We could have health care reform that does not increase taxes on the American people at the worst possible time, during a recession. We could have health care reform that is done in the light of day rather than behind closed doors.

The American people deserve better, and we ought to defeat this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is National Adoption Day, and there could be no more fitting day to introduce legislation that will help American families achieve their dream of adopting a child.

For too many families, the high cost of adoption makes this dream difficult and sometimes impossible to reach. That is why Congress acted in 2001 to strengthen the adoption tax credit and make welcoming a child into a family more affordable. Unfortunately, this important tax relief will expire at the end of next year.

The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Ben Nelson, the Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act, will permanently extend and improve the 2001 adoption incentives. By easing this financial burden, we will encourage the development of more stable families and provide a brighter future for countless children for years to come.

The Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act will allow adoptive families to receive a tax credit of up to $10,000 and guarantees the maximum $10,000 credit for families who adopt children with special needs. This legislation will help middle-income families break the financial barriers and successfully adopt a child, especially those children with special needs who are in particular need of a loving home. In addition, this bill will allow families to receive the credit in the year an adoption expense is paid or incurred. Currently, those who adopt a child must wait until the following taxable year before receiving a tax credit for an adoption expense. This important change will expedite financial relief, putting money back into the pockets of middle-income families who struggle through the lengthy and costly adoption process.

I am pleased that Senators from both sides of the aisle have cosponsored this legislation, and that it has received endorsements from the National Council for Adoption and RESOLVE: the National Infertility Association, the National Council for Adoption, and the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys. The adoption tax credit and assistance programs have already helped countless children and families by making adoption more affordable. We owe it to future generations of children in need to make these provisions permanent.

Our entire society benefits when children are placed with loving, permanent families. I urge my colleagues to support critical legislation.

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

Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the nomination of Judge David Hamilton for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

First of all, I would like to speak on the state of the judicial nomination process in the Senate. For several weeks now, I have listened to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak on this floor about so-called obstructionism by the minority regarding judicial nominations. For 214 years, the U.S. Senate enjoyed a tradition of holding fair up-or-down votes on judicial nominees regardless of the Senate's political makeup. Beginning in 2003, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ended that tradition when they successfully filibustered 10 judicial nominations by President Bush whom they considered ``out of the mainstream.'' At the time, we insisted that this was a bad and inefficient precedent to set. However, the other side insisted on traveling down that road. Now the majority claims that if we in the minority care about the good of the country, we should just let any judicial nomination by the President sail through the Senate without any objection. I would encourage those Senators to come to my office to listen to the hundreds of Kentuckians who call and write every day in opposition to the nomination of Judge Hamilton and tell those people that they are being ``obstructionists.''

Judge Hamilton's judicial record is not only insufficient for the Seventh Circuit, it is downright scary. He prides himself on blatant judicial activism. On multiple occasions, Judge Hamilton has argued that judges have the power to change the Constitution when making court decisions. He has stated:

part of our job here as judges is to write a series of

footnotes to the Constitution.

If Judge Hamilton would have properly read the Constitution, I am sure he would have realized that it explicitly says that Congress is the only branch which has the authority to make any kind of additional mark to that document.

Looking at his record, Mr. Hamilton has issued some very troubling rulings on child predators. He specifically invalidated a law that required convicted sex offenders to provide information to law enforcement agencies for tracking purposes. In another instance, Mr. Hamilton petitioned the President to grant clemency for someone guilty of producing child pornography. The Supreme Court only hears a small fraction of petitioned cases, and, in many cases, precedent is set at the circuit level. Does anyone want someone on the bench setting this kind of precedent?

Furthermore, in practicing his judicial activist point of view, Judge Hamilton struck down an Indiana law that simply required women to receive medical information on the effects of an abortion before going through the procedure. This is a commonsense law and similar laws have never been invalidated by any other judge in the country. The Seventh Circuit Court, to which Mr. Hamilton has been nominated, reversed and was harshly critical of this ruling. The Seventh Circuit reversed another outlandish ruling of Judge Hamilton's. He prohibited prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives that mentioned Jesus Christ, but inconsistently allowed prayers that mention Allah. These outline a very troubling pattern on the bench.

If any of the President's judicial nominees deserve scrutiny, Judge Hamilton is one of them. His record is clearly out of the mainstream of public opinion and he clearly is motivated to push his own political agenda. A good judge is able to set aside his or her own personal opinions when deciding cases. I do not believe that Judge Hamilton can do this. I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

Madam President, today I rise in opposition to the nomination of Mr. Andre M. Davis to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

This position has been vacant since 2000, despite the previous administration's best efforts to nominate a qualified candidate. For example, President Bush nominated remarkable candidates when he sent Mr. Rod Rosenstein before the Senate in 2007 for the Fourth Circuit judgeship. At the time, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued that Mr. Rosenstein was ``too qualified'' to be appointed to this position. Now, President Obama has nominated Mr. Andre Davis, who has made very questionable rulings while enjoying the support from the same

Senators who opposed more qualified candidates.

While I do not raise issue with Mr. Davis's character, I find his judicial record very troubling. His rulings have been overturned by the Fourth Circuit numerous times. In over six different cases, Mr. Davis was noted and reversed by the Fourth Circuit because he suppressed evidence. Because of his rulings, criminals could and have been allowed to walk. The U.S. Supreme Court only hears a limited number of cases, which means that the final ruling on many more cases are made at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals level.

It is clear that President Obama and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle care less about sending a good candidate to the Fourth Circuit bench and more about pushing their own agendas. After holding up several more qualified candidates for this position, my colleagues in the majority insist on appointing someone who was reported out of the Judiciary Committee just 36 days after being nominated by President Obama. I urge my fellow Senators to oppose this nomination. Our justice system should not be compromised over political agendas.

Mr. President, I support the substitute amendment before us.

The national unemployment rate is now 9.8 percent. In Kentucky, the unemployment rate is 10.9 percent. Millions of Americans are searching for work, and too many families are struggling and uncertain about their future. This is unacceptable.

When Congress passed the so-called stimulus bill earlier this year that cost $787 billion, not counting increased interest payments on the national debt, our national unemployment rate was 8.1 percent. Clearly, this costly legislation has failed to stop the bleeding of jobs from the American economy.

The bleak job picture makes it necessary to consider another extension of unemployment benefits. But if you talk to Americans who are searching for work, the best unemployment benefit we could extend to them is a high-quality job.

That is why I believe it is so important to include provisions in this bill that will actually create jobs and reduce unemployment. Over 2 weeks ago, I proposed an amendment that would provide net operating loss relief to businesses so they can hire and retain workers.

I also strongly supported Senator Isakson's efforts to extend the home buyer tax credit, which is critical for the millions of jobs that depend on the housing industry.

On October 27, I voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill because there was no guarantee that a vote would be allowed on these two crucial provisions to improve the job situation for Americans.

Today, this substitute amendment includes both of these job-creating provisions.

Regarding net operating losses, businesses are generally allowed to offset their income with losses. Under current law, they can carry these losses back for 2 years and carry them forward for 20 years. In a difficult economy where businesses have experienced devastating losses, they may go out of business before they can recover their own money, or they may hang on and gradually recover their money when they return to profitability.

During tough economic times, Congress has extended the net operating loss carryback from 2 to 5 years so businesses can apply for immediate refunds. The logic behind this is that businesses should have access to their own money when it can do the most good and prevent massive layoffs. In an economic crisis, it makes no sense to delay tax refunds until some uncertain, distant point in the future. Businesses may not survive in the future if they do not have access to their own money today.

This relief is especially important in today's climate, where businesses find it increasingly difficult to get credit from banks.

That is why I am pleased that this substitute amendment responded to my call for substantial net operating loss relief, which will allow businesses to create and keep jobs. It also includes Senator Isakson's extension and expansion of the home buyer credit, which will stimulate jobs in the housing industry. The crisis in the housing market was a root cause of our economic crisis and it is essential to extend this temporary tax credit to help stabilize the market.

This amendment is not perfect. It is unfortunate that the unemployment benefit extension is financed by imposing taxes on businesses, and the net operating loss and home buyer provisions are offset by delaying tax relief that would make American businesses more competitive internationally. I had proposed an offset to my net operating loss amendment that would not have raised taxes or delayed tax relief, and my amendment would have provided more relief for job creation. However, legislation is rarely perfect, and on balance this amendment provides substantial tax relief and will spur job creation.

I urge my colleagues to support this substitute amendment, which will both extend unemployment benefits and extend tax relief that will reduce the number of unemployed.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor nuclear weapons program workers and uranium miners, millers and haulers. Tomorrow, October 30, 2009, has been designated by Congress as a national day of remembrance for these workers and their families.

During the Cold War, these men and women served the United States by working in the Department of Energy's nuclear plants, exposing themselves to hazardous materials. As a result of this exposure, many developed illnesses and sacrificed their well-being for the sake of our Cold War victory.

This day of remembrance is particularly important to Kentuckians, because of men and women who have worked--and still work--for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Paducah, KY, since 1952. During the Cold War, this plant enriched the uranium for the weapons that kept America safe. Back then, this plant provided jobs to a small town and helped Paducah grow. What these workers did not necessarily know then was that they were not just going to work for a paycheck, but they were sacrificing themselves to protect our national security. Now, during a time of high unemployment, the plant continues to provide jobs by cleaning up the nuclear waste of the Cold War era.

Our Nation's nuclear workers have bravely served our country at a time when we needed them most and they deserve to be honored. Today, I, alongside the Nation, recognize these fine men and women for the sacrifices they have made.

Madam President, today I would like to recognize the I Have Wings breast cancer foundation in Erlanger, KY. October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and I Have Wings has dedicated its efforts to the ongoing battle against breast cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society, this year over 190,000 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in our Nation and an estimated 40,000 Americans will lose their fight with breast cancer. At the same time, today there are millions of women in our country who have been treated for breast cancer.

Throughout my tenure as a U.S. Senator, I have supported legislation to increase awareness, prevention, and funding for breast cancer. Too often we hear about a case of breast cancer that is caught at a late stage, leaving the patient and families with little hope. These stories remind us why we must continue to support and expand National Breast Cancer Awareness Month efforts.

The I Have Wings foundation is a leader in the fight against breast cancer. It strives to educate individuals, provides encouragement for those in need, and generously supports research efforts in Kentucky. And while efforts by I Have Wings and other breast cancer foundations often go unnoticed in the ongoing battle against this deadly disease, we must remember that they play an important role as an activist and educator in our communities.

Again, I commend the efforts of the I Have Wings foundation as our Nation continues to spread breast cancer awareness.

Mr. President, today I congratulate the members of the city of Southgate's Volunteer Fire Department. This year marks the department's centennial anniversary.

This year the city of Southgate's Volunteer Fire Department is celebrating 100 years of service to the Northern Kentucky area. Southgate is my hometown, and I know and appreciate the great lengths that the fire department goes to in order to keep its citizens safe. I want to honor every volunteer who, on a daily basis, risks his or her life to faithfully serve their neighbors.

Again, I congratulate the city of Southgate's Volunteer Fire Department on reaching their centennial milestone. I know that the volunteers' efforts are an inspiration to others in Kentucky and throughout the Nation.

Mr. President, I am very disappointed the majority has chosen to block full consideration of my amendment. What I am trying to accomplish is simply more transparency in the Senate. This would be accomplished by requiring a Congressional Budget Office score and posting of legislation 72 hours before consideration by committees or the full Senate.

As a recent poll has shown, 83 percent of the American people support a waiting period before Congress votes on bills. My amendment would provide this to the American people. I think it is outrageous the other side is using a procedural tactic to block consideration of this amendment on this bill.

Be assured I will be back to bring up this issue again and get a fair and full consideration of it by the Senate.

I thank the Chair.