Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal, which will strengthen the content knowledge and instructional skills of our present K-12 teacher workforce. Our goal with this legislation, like any education legislation I support, is to ultimately raise student achievement.

The Teachers Professional Development Institutes Act would establish up to eight new Teachers Professional Development Institutes throughout the nation each year over the next 5 years based on the successful model that has been operating at Yale University for over thirty years. Every Teachers Institute would consist of a partnership between an institution of higher education and the local public school system in which a significant proportion of the students come from low-income households. These Institutes will strengthen the present teacher workforce by giving each participant an opportunity to gain more sophisticated content knowledge and a chance to develop curriculum units with other colleagues that can be directly applied in their classrooms. We know that teachers gain confidence and enthusiasm when they have a deeper understanding of the subject matter that they teach and this translates into higher expectations for their students and an increase in student achievement.

The Teachers Professional Development Institutes are based on the Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model that has been in existence since 1978. For over 30 years, the Institute has offered, five or six 13 session seminars each year, led by Yale faculty, on topics that teachers have selected to enhance their mastery of the subject areas they teach. The subject selection process begins with representatives from the Institutes soliciting ideas from teachers throughout the school district for topics on which teachers feel they need to have additional preparation, topics that will assist them in preparing materials they need for their students, or topics that will assist them in addressing the standards that the school district requires. As a consensus emerges about desired seminar subjects, the Institute director identifies university faculty members with the appropriate expertise, interest and desire to lead the seminar. University faculty members, especially those who have led Institute seminars before, may sometimes suggest seminars they would like to lead, and these ideas are circulated by the representatives as well. The final decisions on which seminar topics are offered are ultimately

made by the teachers who participate. In this way, the offerings are designed to respond to what teachers believe is needed and useful for both themselves and their students.

The cooperative nature of the Institute seminar planning process ensures its success. Institutes offer seminars and relevant materials on topics teachers have identified and feel are needed for their own preparation, as well as what they know will motivate and engage their students. Teachers enthusiastically take part in rigorous seminars they have requested, and practice using the materials they have obtained and developed. This helps ensure that the experience not only increases their preparation in the subjects they are assigned to teach, but also their participation in an Institute seminar gives them immediate hands- on active learning materials that can be used in the classroom. All of this is a very empowering experience for teachers.

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute conducted a National Demonstration Project from 1999-2002 that showed that similar Institutes could be created rapidly at diverse sites with large concentrations of disadvantaged students. After 2 years of research and planning, and based on the success of that project, the Institute in 2005 launched the Yale National Initiative to strengthen teaching in public schools, a long-term endeavor to assist with the establishment of Teachers Institutes of this specific type in most states. As a result, new Institutes already have been established in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Charlotte, North Carolina, and New Castle County, Delaware. Nine other school districts in 6 states, including California, Arizona, Oklahoma, Illinois, Virginia, and Georgia, are currently participating in the Initiative to learn how to develop a new Institute.

The teachers surveyed for the National Demonstration Project reported that student motivation, student interest, and student mastery were higher during the Institute-developed unit than during other work. Subsequently, the findings of a 2009 Report on Teachers Institute Experiences found that teachers participated out of desires to obtain curricula that suited their needs, increased subject mastery, and motivated students. Mr. President, 96 percent of the teachers rated the Institute seminars as useful, partly due to the reported increase in knowledge and in raising expectations for their students.

A retrospective study showed that over 5 years, Teachers Institute participants were almost twice as likely as non-participants to remain teaching in the district 5 years later. Research has shown that longevity in a district leads to increased teacher effectiveness.

Many agree that teacher quality is the single most important school- related factor in determining student achievement. High-quality teacher professional development programs that focus on subject and pedagogy knowledge are a proven method for enhancing the effectiveness of a teacher in the classroom. A recent review of professional development studies by the Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences found that, and I quote ``teachers who receive substantial professional development, an average of 49 hours in the 9 studies, can boost their students' achievement by about twenty-one percentile points.''

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute model enhances teachers' basic writing, math, and presentation skills. It increases expectations of student achievement and enthusiasm for teaching while developing skills for motivating students. These are key features that research suggests are effective in producing gains in both teacher knowledge and practice and student achievement. The Teachers Institutes lead to student achievement gains through a proven approach distinguished from both conventional professional development offerings of school districts and from traditional continuing education and outreach programs of colleges and universities.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said recently, and I quote, ``the practices of high-performing countries show clearly that America in particular has to do much more to elevate the teaching profession, from the recruitment and training of teachers to their evaluation and professional development.''

This is precisely what the Teachers Professional Development Institutes Act strives to accomplish. The need for effective teachers with deep content knowledge is most apparent and urgent in schools and school districts that enroll a high proportion of students from low- income families, exactly the schools and school districts that Teachers Institutes serve.

The Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute has already proven to be a successful model for teacher professional development as demonstrated by the high caliber curriculum unit plans that teacher participants have developed and placed on the web, and by the evaluations that support the conclusion that virtually all the teacher participants felt substantially strengthened in their mastery of content knowledge and their teaching skills. The finding that Institute participants were almost twice as likely as non-participants to remain teaching in high- need schools is especially encouraging. Our proposal would open this opportunity to many more teachers in high-need schools throughout the nation.

I urge my colleagues to act favorably on this measure.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the fiscal crisis facing our country and specifically the dire financial situation of Medicare, which is a program that matters so much to tens of millions of senior Americans but also adds so much to our national debt. I wish to talk about some ideas I have about how we might effectively deal with this problem in Medicare, particularly, without doing away with the Medicare Program because I believe in it.

If I can start on a broader level, briefly. It is hard to find anybody in Congress in any party who does not acknowledge that our Federal Government is hurtling toward the edge of a financial cliff. We are now running deficits in this year of over $1 trillion. That means we are spending $1 trillion more than we are taking in so we have to borrow that money, and at some point we are going to reach a level of borrowing that is unsustainable. It will send our economy hurtling down, will bring us into another great recession, will compromise our ability to provide the security and services to the people of our country that it is our responsibility to provide. To avoid that horrific result, we have to show some responsibility and work across party lines to get some things done. None of this is easy.

Almost everybody will say we have a terrible financial problem in the Government, debt, deficit, but when you get to the solutions, there has been an outbreak of what I call Federal Government NIMBYism. Everybody talks about NIMBY at the State and local level--Not In My Back Yard; this is a great program, but I do not want it in my neighborhood. The Federal Government budget crisis we are in, NIMBYism seems to be not my program or not my favorite tax credit. You can cut other stuff but not what I am in favor of.

We have one group saying no tax increases whatsoever, even indirect through the elimination of tax credits, which is spending money, and tax credits can be as wasteful an expenditure of the taxpayers' money as a wasteful spending program can be. On the other side, we have people saying: Not my program. You cannot touch it. You cannot even try to make it more efficient. It is just too good or it is too politically popular or whatever. If we keep going down that road, we are not going to get anything done.

The main hope of our result in the next couple months is the small bipartisan, bicameral leadership group that is being presided over by Vice President Biden. I think anytime any of us comes out and says: No, we cannot do this, we cannot have a tax increase of any kind, we cannot even eliminate wasteful tax credits, and on the other side people say, we cannot touch Medicare, for instance, it, one, shackles the hands of Vice President Biden as he tries to solve this problem, and it also means, more generally, that we are not fulfilling our responsibility. That is the case with Medicare. The fact is, those who say you cannot do anything with Medicare, just will not support it, are not doing a favor to the Medicare Program.

Congressman Paul Ryan, in the House, put forth his own budget, including a Medicare reform program. I said when he did it, I want to look at it in more detail, but I gave him credit to put something so comprehensive out because it is going to take that kind of guts by all of us to save our great country from going over the edge of the cliff, from going into permanent decline, from making it impossible for our children and grandchildren and beyond to have the opportunities we have had.

When I looked at the Ryan plan, particularly on Medicare, I decided I was not for it. When it came to the Senate, I voted against it. That was the case, generally, when it came up in the Senate and the vote on the Ryan budget. But one cannot just stop there and say no, which is a popular vote on a Medicare reform proposal. I think any of us responsibly have to then come forward with our own ideas. That is why, last week, I indicated in a newspaper op-ed column that I would be putting some proposals forward that will save Medicare, that will protect Medicare as a Government program of health insurance for senior Americans but will change the program. Anybody who

tells you Paul Ryan is going to kill Medicare as we know it, there is another way to kill Medicare as we know it, which is to do nothing to try to save it.

We cannot save Medicare as it exists today. There are a couple of statistics. In 2010, the Medicare Program cost $523 billion. The estimates I have seen are consensus, not extreme estimates, that within the next 10 years that number will double to over $1 trillion for Medicare. Where are we going to get the money to pay for that? That is going to add to the national deficit and the national debt. Part of what is happening is the baby boomers are coming of age and Medicare eligibility--15 million in the coming years coming into this program.

I will give you another general statistic. All the studies I have seen show--most people do not appreciate this, if I can say, the average Medicare participant over their lifetime will actually cost the system in benefits three times what we put in through premiums, withdrawals, et cetera. So this program is on an unsustainable course. I think if you want to save Medicare, you have to be willing to change it. You cannot say do not touch Medicare. I must say I am disappointed when I hear people say that.

Here are some of the ideas I am working on legislation to propose. The plan I outlined last week, and I am putting into legislation, I think will extend the solvency of the Medicare Part A, a big program for hospital care. It will lower the Federal Government's financial commitments to the Part B Program for doctor services and, most importantly, it will keep the Medicare Program alive and serving America's senior citizens for at least 20 years and when we get it estimated, probably by a lot more.

A lot of the proposals I made--and I have five key parts of it--are similar to ones that have been made earlier and the Congressional Budget Office has made estimates on. My guess, applying existing CBO estimates to the ideas I put forward, is they will save $250 billion in the first 10 years and extend the life of the program by at least 20 years, which is 20 more years in which American seniors can depend on Medicare to help them pay their health care bills in their senior years.

Here is some of what I am proposing. It is controversial. They are all controversial. We cannot save Medicare without doing some things that make people unhappy. I am proposing to raise the eligibility age of Medicare from 65 to 67, beginning in 2014, by 2 months every year until it reaches 67 years in 2025. That would put it on the same course Social Security is on now, to go up to 67, which means if you turn 65 in 2014, you are going to have to wait an additional 60 days before you become eligible for Medicare. In my opinion, that is a small price to pay for the guarantee that you are going to have Medicare to take care of your health costs for the rest of your senior years.

The reason for this change being necessary is factual. When the Medicare Program began in the mid-1960s, the average lifespan of an American was a little less than 70 years. Today, the average lifespan is 78. Thank God. That means people are obviously living longer. Part of why they are living longer is they are getting better health care, but that wonderful fact explains why the average recipient takes three times as much out of the Medicare system as they put in.

I will give you another number that says this in a different way. In 1965, there were about 4.6 active workers for every Medicare enrollee in the program as a senior. In 2005, that went down to 3.8 active workers. The Medicare actuaries tell us, by 2050, that will drop to 2.2 workers for everybody on Medicare at that time, and that means the burden on those 2.2 workers is going to be too high. The current math, therefore, is unsustainable, and it is why we have to change the eligibility age.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, doing so, 65 to 67, will save $125 billion over 10 years. That is a substantial savings, which will contribute to keeping the program viable and paying bills for seniors.

The other thing to say is that for those who fear what will happen to those seniors between 65 and 67 as they wait--some will have their own health insurance--but we did pass health care reform, and that is going to be there to cover those people through the health care exchanges.

Second, I am proposing that we reform the complex Medicare benefit structure, which is wasteful, misunderstood, particularly by the beneficiaries and a lot of the providers, and prone to overutilization and fraud. That is, prescribing more health services because someone doesn't pay for it, Medicare does--but we all pay for it. The Medicare benefit structure is so confusing and so maligned with various deductibles, copays, cost sharing, caps, fees, forms, and limits that one would be hard-pressed to find a Medicare enrollee who really understands how their insurance coverage works. As a result, there is enormous waste and excess utilization, with services being paid for by the Medicare Program that are really not needed for the health of the individual. That, again, means more costs for the taxpayers.

I think we can fix these problems by implementing a single, combined Part A and B deductible requiring a copay on all Medicare services and, if we choose, we can also do something new, which is create a maximum, out-of-pocket benefit that will give seniors peace of mind. In other words, they would only be required to pay up to a certain amount out of their pockets every year. So it guarantees them that if they have a serious illness requiring long-term hospitalization, they are not going to be forced into poverty or bankruptcy. This proposal was part of the Bowles-Simpson report, and it is a good one.

Third, I think it is time to reform the premium structure. When Medicare was implemented, the premiums paid by the beneficiaries supported 50 percent of the cost of the program. In fact, when President Johnson signed Medicare into law, he noted that this equal contribution--50 percent from government, 50 percent from the insured-- was a critical part of the program. He said:

And under a separate plan, when you are 65 you may be

covered for medical and surgical fees whether you are in or

out of the hospital. You will pay $3 per month after you are

65 and your government will contribute an equal amount.

Fifty-fifty.

Unfortunately, today, as a result of acts of Congress of various kinds--well-intentioned--Medicare enrollee premiums support only 25 percent of the cost of the program--half of what they were intended to when President Johnson signed this extraordinarily progressive and beneficial law into effect. We make up the difference from funds taken out of our Federal budget--general revenues. That is part of why Medicare contributes to the exploding national deficits and long-term debt.

So I am going to propose that we raise premiums for all new enrollees in Part B, which is the part that covers doctor expenses, starting in 2014, so they pay for 35 percent of the program costs instead of 25 percent. That will result in around a $40 increase in premiums. The fact is there is some indexing based on income in the Part B and Part D Programs, and, therefore, under the current law, the increase from 25 percent to 35 percent will be paid by more people of higher income. I know asking anybody to pay more money for anything is not popular, but it is needed if we are to address the stranglehold Medicare puts on our annual budget and if we are to avoid something even more unpopular, which is the demise of the Medicare Program as we know it.

Fourth, I think we need to reform the way Medigap policies work. Medigap policies are insurance policies that cover the gaps in a senior's Medicare coverage. They are designed to pay an enrollee's copays and deductibles so he or she would not be liable for a big hospital bill if they ever get sick. But study after study has found that the Medicare enrollees who have a comprehensive Medigap plan that pays all of the deductible and all of the copays, so the individual doesn't pay anything, use as much as 25 percent more services than those with the traditional Medicare Program, and that is because they don't have any impact on themselves for the utilization of services. Again, who pays for that extra utilization of services? Not the individual Medicare enrollee, the taxpayer, and it is not fair.

Fifth, I think we have to increase revenues into the Medicare Program. We just can't save it by adjusting benefits and making changes in the premium structure. So I am going to propose that higher income Americans--in

this case defining it as people making over $250,000 a year--contribute an additional 1 percent of every dollar of income over $250,000 to save Medicare as we know it.

That is the outline of my plan. I wanted to come and describe it to my colleagues: We raise the eligibility age; charge a more financially sound premium; address overutilization and waste and fraud; and develop a more reliable funding stream so we can save Medicare, which is a great program, and which we would not save unless we make some tough decisions.

I said earlier I think this proposal will save at least $250 billion in the first decade and keep the program alive for 20 years. I was encouraged that the very respected Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said, after I disclosed this plan last week, that they believed it would save as much as $325 billion over the next decade and reduce spending even more in the following decades.

I offer these ideas as a starting point in a discussion we have to have about how we can both extend the solvency and life of Medicare for the seniors who depend on it and reduce our national deficit and debt, which we will not do unless we reduce the drain on our National Treasury that the Medicare Program now represents. I am going to be drafting this as legislation, and I will circulate it to my colleagues. I hope it is of some assistance to Vice President Biden and the leadership group that is working with him as they prepare proposals to get America's ship of state back into fiscal balance.

I know all of these are full of political risk, but the refusal of different parties of Congress to either cut spending on the one hand or raise taxes on the other is exactly why we are in the fiscal mess we are in now, and the more we wait to deal with it the harder it is going to be. At some point, there is going to be such a disaster that we are going to have to both impose Draconian cuts in spending and tax increases, and none of us want to do that. The way to avoid that moment is to do it now in a methodical and sequenced, longer term way.

The fact is, unless we take risks together, the great losers--and those risks have to be across party lines. This has to be a moment when we say to each other across party lines: These are tough votes. I can demagogue this vote, I can go after you in the next election based on this vote, but I am pleading with you to cast this vote, and I will cast one that is risky, too, politically, so we can do something good for the country because, if we don't turn away from partisanship and turn toward shared responsibility, the big losers are going to be our great country and the wonderful people who elected us and sent us here to lead. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, which I am introducing today along with my colleagues Senators Crapo, Tester, Bingaman, Murkowski, Whitehouse, Begich, Cardin, and Mark Udall. This legislation would establish the most comprehensive effort ever attempted to treat the causes of fish habitat decline.

Healthy waterways and robust fish populations are vital to the well- being of our society and are a staple in many cultures throughout the United States. This bill will help provide clean water and sustainable fisheries in this country and provide recreational value to those who fish wild waters or canoe tranquil streams. This means more recreational fishing opportunity, which translates into more jobs and economic output. Currently, recreational fishing supports approximately one million jobs and $45 billion in direct expenditures. Today, nearly half, 40 percent, of our fish populations are in decline, over 700 species in total, and 50 percent of our Nation's waters are impaired. Unless we act in an informed and coordinated fashion, fish habitats will continue to be lost at a rapid pace. This bill is about better habitat, better recreational fishing opportunity as well as a better economy.

Currently, our Nation's efforts to address threats to fish species are often highly disjointed and not extensive enough to reverse this downward trend. Under the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act, Federal Government agencies, State and local governments, conservation groups, fishing industry groups and related businesses will work together collectively for the first time to conserve and protect aquatic habitats critical to our Nation. The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act will also provide people with clean and safe water supplies and improve ecosystems through habitat conservation projects that remediate problems on our waterways, including erosion, drainage issues and flooding.

This legislation leverages Federal, State, and private funds to build regional partnerships aimed at addressing the Nation's biggest aquatic habitat problems. By directing critical resources towards this cause through partnerships, we can foster fish habitat conservation efforts and improve the quality of life for all Americans. Using a bottom-up approach, the goal of this effort is to foster landscape scale, multi- state aquatic habitat improvements across the country that perpetuate not only fishery resources but the tradition of recreational fishing, which is enjoyed by many Americans, spanning many generations. Over 40 million anglers utilize our waterways on a yearly basis, generating $45 billion dollars in retail sales for the industry nationwide. That figure does not even include Americans who utilize our waterways for other recreational purposes.

The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act authorizes grants to be directed toward fish habitat projects that are supported by regional Fish Habitat Partnerships. Based on the highly successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act model, this legislation establishes a multi-stakeholder National Fish Habitat Board charged with recommending projects to the Secretary of Interior for assistance. Regional Fish Habitat Partnerships are responsible for implementing approved on-the-ground projects that are designed to protect, restore and enhance fish habitats and fish populations.

The National Fish Habitat Conservation Act lays the foundation for a new paradigm of how to care for fish habitats, displaying why they should be restored and protected. This bill will bring together all of the different groups that have a stake in the health and productivity of our Nation's fish habitats and I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation and reverse the decline of our ailing waterways and fisheries.

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

Mr. President, I wish to pay tribute to the remarkable life and legacy of Richard W. Carr. One year after Dick Carr's passing, I feel deprived of the ongoing, often surprising revelations of his depth and diversity. But also, of course, I feel deeply grateful to have been his friend.

Dick Carr was like a great book in which you find new meanings, insights, and strengths every time you return to it.

When I first met Dick, he seemed like another good guy with a kind and vivacious wife and wonderful daughters who lived a block away from my family in Hillandale. He was surely all that but over time, as I came to know him better, it was clear that Dick Carr was much, much more.

He was a man of property but also a man of poetry. He was a man who knew history, but also understood what it meant to be holy. He learned a lot and taught a lot. He laughed a lot and loved a lot.

Little things sometimes tell us big things about people. For instance, in Hillandale, Dick was one of the few residents who took care of his own yard, with Marie's help of course. Not, I presume, because he couldn't afford gardening help, but because he just enjoyed doing it himself and wanted his grounds to be as perfect as he and Marie would make them. And it tells you a lot about Dick that he didn't stop with his own yard. He took care of the yards of neighbors who were away or whose husbands were ailing or gone. That was Dick Carr.

Dick had many loves in his life none of course greater than Marie, Kate, Annie, Beth, his parents, and his siblings. But he also had a special love for this city--its history and its people--and he helped, along with his family, to rebuild, enrich, and beautify Washington in many lasting ways. Dick's work to restore the Willard Hotel to its previous grandeur was a great gift to our country and its Capital City. His charitable work changed the lives of many who had much less than he did. And he did it all in a quiet way that showed he had the self- confidence not to need the public credit.

In the last 3 years since he was diagnosed with aplastic anemia, I learned some other new things from Dick Carr. In the face of repeated bleak diagnoses and painful treatments, Dick taught me and all of us new meaning of words like strength, courage, and grace under pressure. He didn't just fight the good fight; he fought a great fight until he had given to life all that he could and God was ready to take his soul from this Earth. And Marie, his love and life's partner, fought tirelessly for him and alongside him every step of the way in the most sustained, selfless, and devoted acts of caring I have ever seen. Marie Carr is simply saintly.

Thank you, Marie, for what you showed and taught all of us about love and faith over the years. I pray that you will be strengthened now and in the years ahead by your faith and comforted by wonderful memories of Dick.

I pray also, with total confidence, that Dick's soul has soared to heaven where he is living in eternal peace, which in his case will probably mean reading, writing, gardening, dreaming, and building. In fact, I would not be surprised if right now Dick was devising plans to restore some heavenly structure to its previous grandeur.

Today, in Sister's Garden of the Dahlgren Chapel of the Sacred Heart here in Washington, DC, Dick's great life and legacy will be honored and memorialized forever in that lush, green, and holy space.

May God bless you and keep you, Dick, as you blessed and inspired each of us who knew you.

Mr. President, I regret that for personal reasons I could not be present in the Senate for the vote on the Tester amendment No. 392 to the Economic Development Revitalization Act, S. 782. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of the Tester amendment.

Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues a milestone that has been reached by an important cultural exchange program administered by the State Department. In 1986, the United States Information Agency, USIA, exercised its authority under the Fulbright/ Hays Act to establish the Au Pair Program on a pilot basis. This initiative was designed to provide opportunities for young Europeans to live with an American family, care for children, and pursue their educational interests.

One of the leaders in developing the concept of the Au Pair Program was the American Institute in Foreign Study, AIFS, located in my hometown of Stamford, CT. AIFS was one of the initial sponsors and worked in connection with the State Department to develop a comprehensive framework that supports American families and foreign nationals.

Over the past 25 years, the Au Pair Program has grown dramatically. Congress assisted in that growth by passing legislation, signed into law by President Clinton in 1997, which gave the Au Pair Program permanent authority under the J-1 visa program. This initiative has proven to be a remarkable success. In fact, over 180,000 au pairs from over 60 countries have lived with an American family for a year since the program's inception.

I can personally attest to the strength and value of the Au Pair Program. When our youngest daughter was growing up, Hadassah and I had several au pairs. They became part of our extended family and we still keep in touch with them today. The exchange experience enriched the lives of our au pair and my family through the sharing of culture, language, and religion.

I am pleased the U.S. State Department is holding a reception on June 9, 2011, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Au Pair Program. I commend all those who have made this program so successful, and in particular AIFS, for its vision and leadership.

Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator McCain, to introduce legislation to ensure that we take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a coast-to-coast communications network for our Nation's first responders that is secure, interoperable and resilient.

As it stands now, the mobile device the average teenager carries has more capability than those of the men and women who put their lives on the line for us each and every day and that is just wrong.

Today, we introduce the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011, which will set aside the so-called D Block of spectrum for public safety entities and provide them the bandwidth they need to communicate effectively in an emergency. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Peter T. King and Bennie G. Thompson, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

I am proud to stand with the representatives of more than 40 organizations representing public safety officials, and with the ``Big 7'' associations representing State and local governments, to call on Congress to put the D Block in the hands of public safety. Those groups include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials--International, APCO International, the National Emergency Management Association, the National Association of State EMS Officials, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association.

I am pleased that President Obama has pledged his commitment to reserve

the D Block for public safety. I also look forward to working with Senator Rockefeller, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, who has championed this cause and has signaled his determination to see a bill move through Congress this year.

Today, public safety communicates on slices of scattered spectrum that prevent interoperable communications among agencies and jurisdictions, and that do not allow the large data transmissions that we take for granted in today's commercial communications.

Securing the D Block for public safety will allow us to build a nationwide interoperable network for emergency communications that could prevent the kinds of communication meltdowns we had during 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina.

But setting aside the D Block will also allow first responders to send video, maps, and other large data transmissions over their mobile devices. For example, firefighters' lives may be saved because they will be able to access building specifications on their handhelds and know all the exits of a burning building before they enter it. A police officer at the scene of a crime would be able to feed video back to headquarters. Emergency response officials would be able to exchange data with hospitals while treating patients at the scene of an accident.

I do not think it is wise, as the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, proposed in its National Broadband Plan, to auction the D Block to commercial interests and then to hope that public safety will be able to piggy-back on it. In a crisis, first responders need secure, reliable and quick communications that are not disrupted by commercial traffic.

The Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011 would ensure that the D Block is licensed to the same public safety broadband licensee that currently holds the license for 10 MHz in the 700 MHz band. The bill would also provide up to $5.5 billion for a construction fund to assist with the costs of constructing the network and up to $5.5 billion for an operation and maintenance fund for long-term maintenance. These funds would come from revenues generated by the auction of different bands of spectrum to commercial carriers. By dedicating those auction revenues to the public safety network, we can help public safety officials build the system they need without adding to the deficit.

Under our bill, the FCC would set rules for the public safety network, ensuring interoperability across the nationwide system. The rules would also allow public safety to share spectrum with other governmental and private entities, as long as public safety services retain priority access to the spectrum. This authority would help hold down costs of the system by allowing public safety to leverage existing infrastructure.

The grants to build and maintain the public safety network would be administered by the Department of Homeland Security and would be awarded directly to States and municipalities, who are in the best position to know how to deploy the network in their jurisdictions.

Achieving nationwide interoperability through adequate spectrum is a major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is unfulfilled. We should not let the 10th anniversary of 9/11 pass without legislating to remedy that failure. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Commission, the Honorable Thomas H. Kean and the Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, appeared before our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in March and urged the immediate allocation of the D Block to public safety, bluntly, and rightfully, delivering a message to Congress that further delay is intolerable. I urge my colleagues to take bold action to remedy Congress's past inaction by promptly passing the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011.

Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleague Senator McCain, to introduce legislation to ensure that we take advantage of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a coast-to-coast communications network for our Nation's first responders that is secure, interoperable and resilient.

As it stands now, the mobile device the average teenager carries has more capability than those of the men and women who put their lives on the line for us each and every day and that is just wrong.

Today, we introduce the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011, which will set aside the so-called D Block of spectrum for public safety entities and provide them the bandwidth they need to communicate effectively in an emergency. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representatives Peter T. King and Bennie G. Thompson, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

I am proud to stand with the representatives of more than 40 organizations representing public safety officials, and with the ``Big 7'' associations representing State and local governments, to call on Congress to put the D Block in the hands of public safety. Those groups include the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Sheriffs Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, the Metropolitan Fire Chiefs Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials--International, APCO International, the National Emergency Management Association, the National Association of State EMS Officials, the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association.

I am pleased that President Obama has pledged his commitment to reserve

the D Block for public safety. I also look forward to working with Senator Rockefeller, the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, who has championed this cause and has signaled his determination to see a bill move through Congress this year.

Today, public safety communicates on slices of scattered spectrum that prevent interoperable communications among agencies and jurisdictions, and that do not allow the large data transmissions that we take for granted in today's commercial communications.

Securing the D Block for public safety will allow us to build a nationwide interoperable network for emergency communications that could prevent the kinds of communication meltdowns we had during 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina.

But setting aside the D Block will also allow first responders to send video, maps, and other large data transmissions over their mobile devices. For example, firefighters' lives may be saved because they will be able to access building specifications on their handhelds and know all the exits of a burning building before they enter it. A police officer at the scene of a crime would be able to feed video back to headquarters. Emergency response officials would be able to exchange data with hospitals while treating patients at the scene of an accident.

I do not think it is wise, as the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, proposed in its National Broadband Plan, to auction the D Block to commercial interests and then to hope that public safety will be able to piggy-back on it. In a crisis, first responders need secure, reliable and quick communications that are not disrupted by commercial traffic.

The Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011 would ensure that the D Block is licensed to the same public safety broadband licensee that currently holds the license for 10 MHz in the 700 MHz band. The bill would also provide up to $5.5 billion for a construction fund to assist with the costs of constructing the network and up to $5.5 billion for an operation and maintenance fund for long-term maintenance. These funds would come from revenues generated by the auction of different bands of spectrum to commercial carriers. By dedicating those auction revenues to the public safety network, we can help public safety officials build the system they need without adding to the deficit.

Under our bill, the FCC would set rules for the public safety network, ensuring interoperability across the nationwide system. The rules would also allow public safety to share spectrum with other governmental and private entities, as long as public safety services retain priority access to the spectrum. This authority would help hold down costs of the system by allowing public safety to leverage existing infrastructure.

The grants to build and maintain the public safety network would be administered by the Department of Homeland Security and would be awarded directly to States and municipalities, who are in the best position to know how to deploy the network in their jurisdictions.

Achieving nationwide interoperability through adequate spectrum is a major recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that is unfulfilled. We should not let the 10th anniversary of 9/11 pass without legislating to remedy that failure. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Commission, the Honorable Thomas H. Kean and the Honorable Lee H. Hamilton, appeared before our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in March and urged the immediate allocation of the D Block to public safety, bluntly, and rightfully, delivering a message to Congress that further delay is intolerable. I urge my colleagues to take bold action to remedy Congress's past inaction by promptly passing the Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011.

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

Madam President, I rise to offer my full support for Susan Carney of my State of Connecticut, who is the President's nominee, now approved by the Judiciary Committee, to serve on a very important circuit court--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Susan Carney's legal education and long career of public service will make her a valuable addition to the Federal bench. I thank President Obama for his decision to nominate Ms. Carney, and I urge my colleagues across party lines to confirm her nomination when it comes to a vote in a short while today.

Ms. Carney, as a matter of record, was quickly reported out of the Judiciary Committee with a bipartisan vote of 15 to 3 on February 17 of this year. This, in fact, was the second time her nomination had been reported out of the committee with broad bipartisan support. If confirmed, Susan Carney will fill one of two judicial vacancies on the second circuit--vacancies which the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has declared to be emergency vacancies. As I have said, she has been thoroughly vetted twice by the Judiciary Committee and earned bipartisan support both times.

I would like to take a moment to provide some background on the nominee's credentials. Susan Carney has a very diverse background, both in private practice, working for the Peace Corps, and most recently serving as the deputy general counsel at Yale University. For the past 12 years, she has served in that position. As Yale's President Richard Levin put it:

Susan Carney has served the University with insight,

intelligence, and superb legal skills.

He added that she has never failed to be guided by what he referred to as her ``firm ethical compass.''

In her capacity as general counsel, Ms. Carney was the second highest legal officer at Yale--which is of course not just a great educational and research institution but has an operating budget of more than $2 billion annually, more than 12,000 employees, and more than 11,000 students. So there was a lot of legal work to do there.

Ms. Carney's portfolio included a lot of complicated areas covered by Federal law, including scientific research, intellectual property, and health care. She also managed other legal elements of Yale's transactions with institutions throughout this country and the world.

Ms. Carney served as a law clerk to Judge Levin Hicks Campbell on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit before entering private practice. She has been admitted to practice in seven courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She is a member of three different bars: the Massachusetts bar, the District of Columbia bar, and the Connecticut bar, and has also served on the board of directors of the National Association of College & University Attorneys.

This is a superbly qualified individual with a broad background in a host of different legal fields which she will bring to the bench. I think most significant of all--and she obviously impressed both parties on the Judiciary Committee--she is balanced, she is openminded, and she will adjudicate according to what President Levin called ``her firm ethical and moral compass.'' Therefore I hope there will be a strong vote of support to send Susan Carney to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals where she will serve the cause of justice in America very well indeed.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight and Reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Financing 21st Century Infrastructure.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Strategic Implications of Pakistan and the Region.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-430 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``A Nation Prepared: Strengthening Medical and Public Health Preparedness and Response.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Addressing the U.S. Postal Service's Financial Crisis.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 17, 2011, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Security and Facilitating Commerce at America's Northern Border and Ports of Entry.''

Mr. President, sometime after nightfall on November 1, 1950, under the cover of a dark sky, there was a firefight north of the town of Unsan, in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Unsan lies in the eastern North Pyongan province, on the western half of the peninsula. It sits peripheral to the Kuryong River, which cuts a steep valley through the land as it channels out into the Korea Bay. Unsan also lies north of the 38th parallel and was enemy territory for the U.S. 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, which had taken up position there just days before.

The regiment was part of a northward advance toward the Sino-Korean border, in aggressive pursuit of a weakened, retreating North Korean enemy. But as it advanced, it encountered a ferocious counteroffensive lead by Chinese forces, absorbing tragic casualties at the hands of damaging defeat. As the regiment retreated south back across the Kuryong, it was forced to leave behind many brothers in arms. Almost 600 Americans fell that day, many of whom were declared missing in action, MIA, never to be found.

Among the regiment was Primo Carnabuci of Essex, CT. Primo came from a family of patriots; his two brothers, Dominic and Louis, also served our country in uniform. Anecdotes about Primo from the battlefield paint the picture of a tenaciously courageous fighter. In one such story, outlined in a military document awarding him a Distinguished Service Cross for heroism, as reported by the Middletown Press, Primo was temporarily sidelined from battle after killing three enemy soldiers and taking grenade shrapnel to the face. As he was being attended to by a medic, Primo, according to the document, ``thrust away the aid man, picked up his rifle, and with utter disregard for his own safety, advanced into the fire of the enemy machine gun with blood streaming down his face.''

His brother Dominic was not surprised to hear that story. And it is safe to say that, as his regiment encountered those Chinese forces on that November night in 1950, Primo did not shy away from danger, but rather took the fight to the enemy, even as it overwhelmed his regiment. He ultimately perished in that battle and was declared MIA, leaving his family back home in Connecticut heartbroken and unsure about where he was, and whether he was alive or dead.

Suppressed in history's pages between the Second World War and the Vietnam war, the Korean war is often referred to as the ``Unknown War,'' or as the ``Forgotten War.'' While Primo Carnabuci's whereabouts were unknown to his family, he was certainly not forgotten. Every night since then, his brother Dominic has prayed that his brother would be found, and returned safely and soundly.

Miraculously, that prayer was answered, in part, just a few months ago,

when Dominic received a phone call from a U.S. Government official. Primo's body had been found in a mass gravesite surrounded by several of his compatriots and identified by DNA. Now, Primo has left Unsan, and he is coming back home to Connecticut.

As we gaze across the endless expanse of graves at Arlington Ceremony, or as we mourn the loss of a servicemember during a military burial somewhere across our land today, we must think about those who paid the ultimate sacrifice of not returning home alive but also not returning home at all. This country and its freedoms that we enjoy exist because men and women like Primo Carnabuci have defended it. Many have fallen for it so that we might live in freedom, and unfortunately, some of those who have fallen do not have the solace of having America as their final resting place.

On Thursday, Primo Carnabuci will be buried in Clinton, CT, with full military honors. As the crack of rifle fire and the cry of a bugle ripple through the air, and as the colors that Primo wore the uniform for are draped across his coffin, I hope that Dominic and the entire Carnabuci family will feel relief that Primo has come home and pride in his service. America is where he belongs, and America is where he will now forever rest in peace.

God bless Primo Carnabuci, God bless his family, and God bless the United States of America.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak specifically about the alarming situation in Syria, where the regime of Bashar al Asad is pursuing a barbaric campaign of indiscriminate repression against the Syrian people.

Over the past 2 weeks, the crackdown pursued by Asad has markedly escalated. There can no longer be any doubt about his intentions. As a report by a respected nongovernmental organization, the International Crisis Group, warned this week:

The regime's hope appears to be that a massive crackdown

can bring the protestors to heel. . . . Such a course of

action would entail loss of life on a massive scale and it

could usher in a period of sectarian fighting with

devastating consequences for Syria. It could destabilize its

neighbors. And, ultimately, it is highly unlikely to work.

Madam President, in the city of Deraa, the Asad regime has deployed tanks against the civilian population. It has cut off phone lines, water, food, and electricity, and deployed snipers--according to human rights groups--who have been firing at anyone who ventures outdoors. That includes young people who are sent outdoors by their families to try to buy food.

In short, what we see in Deraa is a broad-based, indiscriminate assault by Asad's military forces against the people of his own country. The evidence is growing that international crimes are being perpetrated by Bashar Asad himself in the city of Deraa in Syria.

The attack on Deraa is just one part of a course of a broader crackdown by Syrian security forces across the country--a crackdown that has left several hundred people dead. Tanks and military forces have been reported being deployed in other cities in Syria. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of arbitrary detentions of civilians and enforced disappearances around the country has skyrocketed in recent days as the Asad regime has swept up not only demonstrators but women, minors, and family members of activists. Another Syrian human rights group has documented more than 500 arrests in Deraa alone since last week, and thousands more nationwide have also been detained or disappeared arbitrarily.

As the report by the International Crisis Group argued--the report I referenced before that came out earlier this week:

The regime is also fanning the flames of sectarianism,

spreading rumors of impending acts targeting specific groups.

Sectarian tendencies no doubt exist in parts of the country,

but the authorities' tactics betray a determined and cynical

attempt to exploit and exacerbate them.

What is most remarkable of all is that in the face of and despite these outrageous inhumane actions by the Asad regime, the people of Syria refuse to be silenced. They refuse to be intimidated. In the face of tanks and snipers, the people of Syria have continued to cry out and demonstrate for their fundamental human rights, and they have continued to do so peacefully. Moreover, despite the sectarian provocations by President Asad, the message of the protesters has remained steadfastly one of Syrian national unity.

Tomorrow, Friday, it is expected that thousands of brave Syrians will once again take to the streets of their cities and towns in protest of the totalitarian dictatorship that currently controls their country. As they do so, I want them to know that the United States and the rest of the civilized world stands unequivocally on the side of the people of Syria in solidarity with them in their courageous struggle for their human rights. They should know also that we are increasingly confident that the people of Syria can and will prevail over the Asad regime.

There is much we in the United States can and must do to help the Syrian people in their fight for freedom. Last week, the Obama administration issued an Executive order authorizing targeted sanctions against individuals and organizations responsible for the human rights abuses in Syria. The administration used this newest authority to sanction three Syrian officials, including Maher al Asad, the brother of Bashar al Asad. This was a very important action, and I thank and commend the Obama administration for taking it.

There is, however, more that now can and must be done. To begin with, it is clear there are many more individuals in the Syrian Government than the three named so far who are responsible for the human rights abuses and worse that are taking place throughout Syria. It is urgent and essential that the Obama administration expand the sanctions to cover these additional Syrian officials.

Members of the Syrian security forces and government must understand they face a choice in the days ahead. If they stick with the Asad regime and participate in the barbaric crackdown against their fellow Syrians, their names are going to be made famous around the world, and they will be held accountable.

It is also critical that the United States impose sanctions on Bashar al Asad himself, for he is the head of the regime that is systematically carrying out large-scale human rights abuses. It is he who is directing his military forces to fire on his own people. Surely, it requires a willing suspension of disbelief to think the order to use military force against the Syrian people did not originate with the President of Syria himself--Bashar al Asad. He must be held accountable.

I respectfully urge President Obama to speak out as soon as possible, directly and personally, about what is happening in Syria. The moral authority of the President of the United States matters enormously at historic moments such as the one in Syria now. Unfortunately, there are still many in Syria and throughout the Middle East who believe the United States is hedging its bets in Syria. It is time to put those doubts to rest.

I have met over the last few weeks, as recently as yesterday, with Syrian

dissidents, and I have heard the same question from them again and again: Why has President Obama not spoken out personally about what is happening in Syria?

I say: The administration has made statements.

They say: We need to hear and see the President and hear his voice-- President Obama--making clear his disdain and refusal to accept what is happening in Syria today.

So I respectfully urge the President to answer these appeals by Syrian freedom fighters for support of their cause. I hope the President can make clear once again, as he did so effectively in the cases of Egypt and Libya, that Bashar al Asad has lost the legitimacy to lead Syria, and it is time for Bashar to go.

The United States can also work with our allies and partners to increase international pressure on the Asad regime. Press reports indicate, I am pleased to note, that the European Union is preparing to put in place an arms embargo against Syria, and it is also considering targeted human rights sanctions against top Syrian officials. I fervently hope our European friends and allies take these and further steps to increase the pressure on the Asad regime.

I am especially encouraged that the French Foreign Minister this week correctly called for Bashar al-Asad to be sanctioned directly himself, to tie up his economic assets, to limit his mobility. In addition to our EU partners, I wish to say I believe Turkey can also play a unique leadership role in the days and weeks ahead to support a successful democratic transition in Syria.

No one has worked harder than Prime Minister Erdogan to encourage Bashar al-Asad to reform, to accept the legitimate demands of the Syrian people, and embrace democracy. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, Asad has ignored the wise counsel of the Turkish leader and refused to respond with action. I, therefore, hope President Obama will find a way to partner directly with Prime Minister Erdogan on developing a new strategy toward Syria, one that recognizes that despite our hopes and efforts, there will be no real progress as long as Bashar al-Asad remains in power in Damascus, a policy that aligns our two democracies--America and Turkey--unequivocally with the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people.

We should also work with our allies on the U.N. Human Rights Council to ensure that the investigative mission to Syria, which was agreed upon by the Council last week, is undertaken immediately. Every day matters. We should work to refer Asad's regime to the International Criminal Court--again, as we did in the case of Libya.

What the Asad regime is doing to the people of Syria looks every day more the mirror image of what the Qadhafi regime has done to the people of Libya. For its actions in the city of Deraa and throughout the country, the Asad regime deserves to be investigated by the International Criminal Court.

I respectfully urge our own administration to use the diplomatic clout that we have at the United Nations to put what is happening in Syria on the agenda of the U.N. Security Council.

I have no illusions about the challenges and obstacles that exist at the Security Council at this time to taking action with regard to what is happening in Syria, but we must try. If the Security Council fails to take up what is happening in Syria, perhaps because of the opposition of the Russians and the Chinese, it does so at the expense of its own international credibility and legitimacy.

Finally, I hope President Obama will work together with our international allies to provide the Syrian people with the humanitarian assistance that they urgently need--food, water, and medical supplies-- and to restore communications linkages that the Asad regime has cut among the freedom fighters in various communities in Syria. Asad has cut them in an effort to prevent news and information about what is happening in Syria also from reaching the outside world.

The situation in Syria is fast approaching the point of no return. The fact is, several hundred Syrians have been killed by Asad's security forces. This is a regime that I conclude is beyond self- correction. Bashar al-Asad is not a reformer. He is a corrupt dictator and an inhumane thug and his regime has long been one of the worst in the Middle East. It is time for him to go.

Let me conclude by adding that nearly a decade after the attacks of September 11, Americans and people throughout the world awoke Monday morning to a safer, better world with Osama bin Laden gone. It is fitting that Osama bin Laden has been killed just as Arab democracies across the Middle East and North Africa are being born, are coming to life. The peaceful, youth-driven democratic revolutions now taking place in Syria, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are the true repudiation of the extreme ideology that I will call bin Ladenism. To rid our world not only of bin Laden but of bin Ladenism, it is critical that we now do everything in our power to help the democratic forces in Syria and across the Middle East succeed, for it will ultimately be quite correctly and powerfully at the hands of his fellow Arabs and Muslims that the hateful and violent ideology of bin Laden and its manifestations of a different sort in dictatorships across the Middle East are finally discredited and abandoned on the ash heap of history where they belong.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on April 7, a pall passed over my hometown of Stamford, CT, when the news began to spread that Mrs. Betty Ruth Hollander, one of its leading citizens and a good friend of mine and my family, had passed away peacefully. A pioneer, entrepreneur, philanthropist, inventor, and a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother, Mrs. Hollander lived a truly remarkable life that touched and inspired almost everyone she met. Her passing is a great loss not just for those of us who were lucky enough to know her personally, but for the entire Stamford community and well beyond.

In 1962, while raising four young children, Betty Hollander founded Omega Engineering out of her kitchen in Stamford. At a time when women faced pervasive discrimination in many industries, Betty utilized her steady work ethic and sharp business acumen to grow Omega from a firm focused on manufacturing a single line of thermocouples to a globally recognized business that produces over 100,000 state-of-the-art products for measurement and control.

Omega's record of success gave Betty the opportunity to serve on a number of corporate boards, including Target Corporation--then Dayton Hudson Corporation--Peoples United Bank and Southern New England Telephone. She was also deeply involved with many charities, and served on the boards of Yale New Haven Hospital, St. Joseph's Hospital and St. Vincent Hospital, Bridgeport, CT. among many other corporations and nonprofit organizations.

Alongside all her success and busy schedule, Betty remained deeply committed to her family. Even when serving as corporate executive officer of Omega, when asked her occupation Mrs. Hollander would reply that she was ``a wife and mother.'' Later, she was able to add ``grandmother'' to the title. These, she insisted, were the most important roles she ever played. In 1952, she married Milton Bernard Hollander, her best friend since high school, beginning a strong 58- year marriage characterized by extraordinary mutual devotion. Together, they had four children, Eva Lynn, Steven, Aaron, and Joel, and nine grandchildren.

To get a sense of the truly exemplary person that Betty Hollander was, all you need to do is look over an online forum set up to honor her memory. Already, over 100 individuals from all walks of life have taken the time to express their condolences and share their favorite memories of Betty. One long-time employee in Omega's shipping department remembers that, no matter

how busy she was as CEO, Betty would always take the time out to get to know all of her employees personally. Others fondly recalled how she was never too busy to mentor younger employees and helped inspire them to pursue their dreams and demonstrate their fullest potential. In addition, there are testimonials from those who worked with her on her charitable endeavors, those who were friends, and even those who had never met her, but who were inspired by her success in business and her service to the community. On a personal level, Betty Hollander and my mother were great friends--two great Jewish mothers--and I have always treasured having had the opportunity to know her.

If we are to be judged in life by the effect we have on others, than Betty Hollander's life was a sterling success!

We honor Betty Hollander's memory and cherish her decency and friendship. I extend my deepest sympathies to Betty's beloved ``Miltie'' Hollander and all of Betty's friends and family on their irreplaceable loss. They will be in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult period.

I thank the Chair. Madam President, it is coincidental, but my remarks follow in a logical path from those of my colleague and friend from Texas, particularly with regard to the thoughtful questions he raised about Syria.

I have come to the floor to speak about the historic and extraordinary events that are taking place in Syria where, for the past 3 weeks, the Syrian people have been peacefully and courageously taking to the streets of their cities. I wish to talk particularly about what may happen in Syria over the next 24 hours.

What is happening, of course, in Syria is part of a broader story that is unfolding across the Middle East--a democratic awakening in which millions of ordinary people are rising up against corrupt autocratic regimes that have ruled the region and suppressed these people for decades. But the strategic stakes in Syria are among the highest anywhere in the region. In fact, I would say what happens in Syria in the coming days will have far-reaching consequences for the future of the Middle East and for our national security here in the United States.

The uprising in Syria began, like those in Tunisia and Egypt, spontaneously and unexpectedly. It rose from the people, not from outside. It began in the city of Dara'a, in southern Syria near the Jordanian border, after the Assad regime arrested a group of schoolchildren there. When the citizens of Dara'a began peacefully assembling to protest this absurd act of repression, the police responded by firing live ammunition into the crowd. Rather than being intimidated by this violence, however, the protest movement persisted and spread.

Although the Assad regime was trying desperately to prevent accurate information about what is happening inside Syria from reaching the rest of the world, it is clear that people in many cities around the country are now in open revolt against the Assad regime.

From Latakia, to Aleppo, and from the Kurdish northeast to the villages along the Mediterranean coastline, more and more Syrians from diverse backgrounds are rising up and demanding their freedom.

What exactly are they asking for? It is the same basic demands we hear throughout the region, and they are very familiar--they should be--to the American people, because they are the very demands that energized and motivated our rebellion and the American Revolution and the founding documents of our country. The people of Syria want greater political freedom and they want economic opportunity. They want into the modern world. They want to be treated with respect by their government, and they want an end to the culture of corruption and impunity that surrounds the Assad regime.

How has Bashar al Assad reacted to these legitimate grievances? The answer is he has responded not by offering reform but by unleashing what President Obama has rightly characterized as abhorrent violence and repression against the Syrian people. He has responded with thugs and militias who have attacked peaceful protestors. He has responded by spouting conspiracy theories rather than loosening his autocratic grip. And as we know now, he has responded by calling on his allies, his patrons in Teheran, to help him crush the demonstrations by the Syrian people, just as the Iranian regime--the fanatical, extremist, expansionist regime in Teheran, stamped out the protests that took place in Teheran after the June 2009 election.

It is now clear what path Bashar al Assad is on. Rather than pursuing reform, he is taking a page from the Qadhafi model. He is betting that he can beat his people into submission through force and that the world will let him get away with slaughter.

Let's be very clear what it means if Bashar succeeds. It will send a most perverse but unmistakable message that leaders such as Mubarak and Ben Ali in Egypt and Tunisia respectively and who are allied with the United States get overthrown, but leaders such as Assad, who are allied with Iran, survive. Is that a message we want to send?

What about tomorrow? Why do I focus on the next 24 hours? Tomorrow is likely to be a critical day for the future of Syria as protestors come together after Friday's prayers. There is a significant danger that it will also become a very bloody day if Assad continues on the path of violence and brutality against his own people.

This is, therefore, an urgent moment for American leadership, at least for America's voice to be heard. It is important for President Assad in Damascus to know today, before the protests that are likely to take place throughout Syria tomorrow, that his regime will be held accountable for its actions.

I hope we will be prepared to act quickly together with the world community if Assad fails to heed the will of the Syrian people and tries to hang on to power through repression and murder.

What can we do? Well, to begin with, we can impose tough and targeted sanctions on the Syrian officials responsible for the human rights abuses that are being perpetrated against their own people. We can also work with our allies to summon a special session of the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, just as we did in the case of Libya, and we can refer Assad's regime to the international criminal court, just as we did with Qadhafi.

We should also embrace the Syrian opposition, the freedom fighters. I hope senior American officials will meet with prominent Syrian dissidents who are here in Washington now. I also urge the administration to speak out clearly in support of the Syrian people who deserve praise for their courage as they risk their lives for freedom and human rights. They must know that the United States, still the beacon of liberty in the world, stands on their side. In the face of attacks by the Syrian regime, Syrian protesters have remained remarkably peaceful, as the protesters in Tunisia and Egypt before them did. In the face of sectarian provocations by Assad, the people of Syria who are protesting have remained together, unified, giving a message of national unity.

I know some have suggested that we should hesitate before throwing our support to the Syrian opposition, to the Syrian people as they rise up, and this argument goes like this: Bashar al Assad is the devil we know. We don't know what might replace him if he fails. But we know enough about Bashar al Assad to know, and we know enough about the opposition to know that it cannot be worse than Assad and will be much better.

The arguments that we should wait and see are, in my opinion, moral and strategic nonsense when we look at the record of Assad. He is Iran's most important Arab ally and, in some senses, Iran's only real ally and the strategic linchpin between Iran and its terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, whom he sustains with financial and military support. Assad is responsible for a terrible campaign, long standing, of intimidation and destabilization of Lebanon, and the blood of Lebanese leaders--too many of them--is on his hands, including that of the great Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri.

As Senator Cornyn said, Assad also has the blood of countless American soldiers on his hands, having allowed Syria to be used for years by foreign extremist fighters affiliated with al-Qaida and their ilk to head to Iraq to attack and kill Americans and Iraqis.

Finally, let's not forget Syria's illegal nuclear activities. This is a regime that tried to build a secret nuclear reactor. They did so with help from North Korea. This is a regime that continues to refuse to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in its investigation of Syria's illegal nuclear activities.

The plain fact is that Bashar al Assad is not a reformer, he is a dictator. He runs a totalitarian regime that has long been one of the worst in the Middle East.

This is a regime that has repressed, intimidated, and, in fact, tortured and slaughtered Syrian people. It is a regime that is deeply corrupt, and it is a regime that has been a menace to its neighbors and to the cause of peace throughout the region.

We now have an opportunity--and I say a responsibility--to support freedom for the Syrian people as they seek a better future for themselves. It would be a shame if they and we lost this opportunity for the Arab spring to come to Syria. I hope, together with our allies, we will seize this moment and stand in solidarity with the people in Syria who are fighting for the fundamental values on which our own country was built: freedom and opportunity.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.