Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, later today the Senate will take up S.J. Res. 6, Senator Hutchison's resolution of disapproval of the FCC's net neutrality regulations. I would like to start by thanking Senator Hutchison for her leadership on this important issue.

While we all understand the importance of an open Internet, I think we can also agree that the growth of the Internet in the last 15 years is an American success story that occurred absent any--any--heavyhanded regulation here in Washington. We should think long and hard before we allow unelected bureaucrats to tinker with it now.

Everywhere I go in Kentucky, I hear from businesses large and small that they are struggling to comply with the mountains of rules and regulations coming out of Washington. At a time when the private sector would like to create jobs and grow the economy, it

seems as if too many here in Washington want to create regulations and grow government. So, like many Americans, I was heartened 2 months ago when the President came to the Capitol and laid out a very specific test for judging the merits of Federal regulation. Like most of my colleagues, I applauded when the President told us that ``we should have no more regulation than the health, safety and security of the American people require. Every rule should meet that common-sense test.''

As it turns out, the FCC didn't get the memo. The net neutrality regulations we are debating today clearly fail that commonsense test. They are a solution in search of a problem. It is an overreaching attempt to fix the Internet when the Internet is not broken. According to the FCC's own data, 93 percent of broadband subscribers are happy with their service. If Americans weren't happy with their provider or felt the provider was favoring some form of content over others, they could switch providers. But now the FCC says its regulations are necessary because of what might happen in the future--what might happen in the future--if broadband providers have incentives to favor one type of content over another, despite the fact that after 15 years, there is no evidence of this occurring in any significant way. If Internet providers were so interested in doing this, wouldn't they have done it by now? Instead, the FCC has exceeded its authority to grow the reach of government under the guise of fixing a problem that doesn't even exist.

So why should this matter to anyone? Simply, the growth of the Internet is one of the great success stories of our lifetime. Just 15 years ago, the thought that you could read a book, watch a ball game, and video conference with your kids all on a device the size of a magazine would have been something from science fiction. Today, it is reality. The Internet has transformed society precisely because people have been able to create and innovate largely free from government intrusion.

Businesses are free to invest and grow on the Internet, safe in the knowledge that consumers and technology will determine their fate, not the whims of Washington regulators. This investment in broadband infrastructure is the cornerstone of our high-tech economy, which employs nearly 3.5 million Americans. But the FCC's regulations could jeopardize its future growth by dictating what sort of return businesses can earn on their investment. As my colleague Senator Hutchison and I recently noted, ``Lower returns mean less investment, which in turn means fewer jobs.'' Some estimates suggest we could lose 300,000 jobs as a result of these rules.

Thankfully, it is not too late to act. A bipartisan majority in the House voted to overturn these rules earlier this year. The Senate should take the opportunity to do the same. In order to protect the growth of the Internet and its ability to create the jobs of the future, I would encourage my colleagues to support the Hutchison resolution.

Bipartisan Jobs Creation

Madam President, I wish to speak now on another issue.

When something good happens here in the Senate, I think it is important that we all acknowledge it. So I would like to start this morning by thanking our friends on the other side for finally agreeing to join us in making some progress on the nearly two dozen bipartisan jobs bills the House has already passed, and I want to urge them to keep at it, to keep pressing ahead with jobs bills both parties will actually support. That way, we will show the American people we are capable of accomplishing something together up here when it comes to jobs.

For months, House Republicans have been executing on a plan to identify ideas which would not only help spur private sector job creation but which would also attract strong bipartisan support. For weeks, I have been urging the Democratic majority in the Senate to take up these bills so they can become law.

This week, Senate Democrats finally agreed to move ahead with two of these bipartisan proposals--a repeal of the 3-percent withholding rule that would ease the burden on government contractors and a veterans bill which not only helps returning service men and women find jobs but which also helps those who hire them. Neither of these bills is going to solve the jobs crisis, but they will help a lot of Americans who deserve it, and they will go a long way in showing the American people there is plenty we can agree on up here.

My suggestion now is that we don't stop there. Let's just keep it up. Let's take up and pass the rest of the bipartisan jobs bills House Republicans have already passed with bipartisan support right across the dome. I have highlighted one of those bills already this week, one that makes it easier for businesses to raise the capital they need to expand and create jobs. This morning, I would like to highlight another--the Shareholder Registration Thresholds Act, H.R. 1965. This is a bill that increases the number of shareholders who are allowed to invest in a community bank before that bank is required to shoulder costly new burdens from the SEC.

For 3 years now we have been talking about the urgent need for growing businesses to have access to capital so they can expand and hire. Yet, because of an outdated law, the smaller community banks that want to make loans to help these growing businesses are subject to burdensome regulations that shouldn't even apply to them. H.R. 1965 will increase the threshold of shareholders that triggers the requirement from 500 to 2,000. A companion bill in the Senate that would do the same thing is cosponsored on the Republican side by Senator Hutchison, among others, and on the Democratic side by Senator Pryor, among others. And Senator Toomey has a bill--S. 1825--to expand this legislation by applying it to businesses other than banks.

Now, we should take up these bills in the Senate and pass them as soon as possible with the same show of bipartisan support the two parties mustered on behalf of H.R. 1965 last week. Just like the bipartisan House-passed jobs bill I highlighted yesterday, H.R. 1965 passed the House last week with nearly unanimous support. The vote was 420 to 2, with 184 Democrats voting in support. Only 2 people out of the entire 435-Member House voted against the bill.

The President's jobs council has endorsed the idea, and top Democrats have been vocal proponents of this legislation proposed by House Republicans.

Here is House minority leader Congressman Hoyer on H.R. 1965 just last week:

We need to see lending to small businesses and homeowners,

but they're hamstrung in their attempt to raise capital by

outdated SEC registration requirements.

I completely agree with Steny Hoyer.

Here is Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee:

Small businesses need access to loans and other lines of

credit in order to build their businesses and to create jobs.

Before us is a measure that would allow small businesses to

get the support they need.

I completely agree with Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Look, it is not every day that Congresswoman Jackson Lee and I agree on legislation. So I think we should lock this down. Let's pocket another bipartisan accomplishment right here and help the job creators who need it.

This is precisely the kind of approach we should be taking here in the Senate--putting aside these giant partisan bills that Democrats know Republicans won't support and focusing on smaller proposals that can actually garner support from nearly everyone and make it onto the President's for a signature.

These are small steps but they are progress. Let's keep at it.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 6.

Madam President, it has now been 2 months since the President came before Congress and outlined his plan for tackling the jobs crisis--a plan that can best be described as a rehash of the same failed policies of the past few years disguised as a bipartisan overture, a political strategy masquerading as a serious legislative proposal. The President put this plan together knowing the Republicans would oppose it. In other words, it was actually designed to fail, as the White House aides have readily admitted to reporters for weeks. This was not, I repeat, a serious effort to do something about jobs and the economy. It was a serious effort to help the President's reelection campaign by making Republicans in Congress look intransigent.

So what I have been saying for the past few weeks is let's put the political games aside. We will have time for the election next year. The American people want us to do something about jobs right now.

Well, it appears the message may be finally breaking through. I was just listening to my friend the majority leader talking about the measure before us--something we support and look forward to passing. It has been championed by Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts as something that would help contractors who do business with the government. I was also glad to see that the Veterans bill, which contains many provisions supported by Republicans, will be the first amendment. So maybe we are making some progress. This is just the kind of thing we have been calling for, just the kind of thing we should be doing a lot more of around here because there is a lot we can agree on when it comes to jobs legislation, and that is where the focus should actually be.

While the President has been out on bus tours, Republicans in the House have been debating and passing bipartisan legislation aimed at making it easier for businesses across the country to grow and to create jobs. Over the past 2 weeks, I have highlighted some of their good work.

Yesterday, I mentioned in particular a bill the House passed just last week called the Small Company Capital Formation Act, H.R. 1070, a bill that received 421 votes, including 183 Democratic votes. Only 1 person of the entire 435-Member House of Representatives voted against the bill--just 1. And President Obama endorsed the idea contained in this bill in his jobs speech a couple of months ago. The question is, Why in the world wouldn't the Democratic majority take it up and pass it right here in the Senate? If Democrats are more interested in passing legislation that helps put Americans back to work than they are in raising taxes, they should at least work with us to pass the bills the President himself has endorsed.

This morning, I want to say again how pleased I am we will be taking up Senator Brown's 3 percent withholding bill to help ease the burden on government contractors and that we will have a vote on and hopefully debate the Veterans bill. I would like to call on the Democratic majority in the Senate to keep it up by taking up H.R. 1070 or its bipartisan Senate companion bill, S. 1544, sponsored by Senators Toomey and Tester.

Take up this legislation that has already passed the House with the support of almost everybody over there and show the American people that you care more about creating jobs than creating campaign slogans. Let's not make the bills we will be voting on today the exception but the rule around here. Why don't we just keep it up?

Right now, small, growing businesses aren't expanding their businesses through a public offering because they simply can't afford the high cost of the government paperwork they are required to manage. Instead of going out there and raising money to grow and hire, they are holding back. They are not expanding. And if they are not expanding, they are not hiring. This bill would remove some of that burden from smaller businesses and help them gain access to new capital that they can invest in their businesses and their employees.

Yesterday, I mentioned the CEO of a pharmaceutical company in Pennsylvania who says that he has a promising new drug for treating chronic kidney disease actually in the pipeline but that he can't take it to the next level because of all the regulatory costs his company is too small to afford right

now. We should be removing barriers for smaller companies such as his. Nearly 200 House Democrats agree with that, and so does President Obama. As I said yesterday, this bill is about as bipartisan as it gets. The only thing standing in the way of passing it in the Senate is the Democrats who schedule legislation around here, and the only reason they could have for blocking it is that it steps on their campaign strategy.

I think that is a mistake. I think the American people can see Republicans in the House passing all these bipartisan bills aimed at spurring job creation, and they wonder why Senate Democrats won't actually take them up.

This should be easy. They have already done the hard work of finding jobs bills that we know can pass both Chambers and that the President would probably sign. Let's take up the bipartisan companion bill of Senators Toomey and Tester to the House bill--their bill is S. 1544-- and let's pass it, and then let's send it to the President for his signature so it can become law.

If you are for creating jobs, you should be for this bill. As the AP put it last month:

Companies use the cash they raise to grow--and that means

hiring people . . . and at a time when 14 million Americans

are looking for work and the unemployment rate has been stuck

near 9 percent for two years, the last thing the economy

needs is for one engine of hiring to stall.

A recent report by NASDAQ of companies that went public from 2001 to 2009 found that those companies increased their collective workforce by 70 percent after making the initial public offering--a 70-percent increase in employment after making an initial public offering.

What this bill does is enable more companies to take that leap and start hiring once they have. This is the kind of thing we should be doing more of in the Senate. Let's put the partisan bills aside and let's focus on bipartisan legislation. Instead, why don't we shoot for success.

Detaining Enemy Combatants

Last week, the White House announced that Prime Minister Nouri al- Maliki of Iraq will be meeting with the President here on December 12. This meeting comes at an important time, as our own military forces will be drawing down their presence within Iraq, and the future of our bilateral security relationship remains very uncertain. But our withdrawal from Iraq raises another important matter I hope the President will raise with Prime Minister Maliki and which highlights some of the difficulties that will result from the military drawdown there, and eventually in Afghanistan, as well, both of these drawdowns the President has ordered. What I am referring to is the law of war detention.

In July of this year, Senate Republicans wrote to Secretary of Defense Panetta concerning the custody of Ali Mussa Daqduq, the senior Hezbollah operative currently in our joint custody in Iraq. Daqduq is in joint custody in Iraq between the United States and the Iraqi Government.

In 2005, Daqduq was directed by senior Hezbollah leaders to travel to Iran, where he trained Iraqi extremists in the use of explosively formed penetrators, mortars, and other terrorist tactics. Among other things, Daqduq is suspected of orchestrating a kidnapping in Karbala, Iraq, 4 years ago that resulted in the murder of five U.S. military personnel. It is a safe bet that if Daqduq is transferred to Iraqi control, he will return to the fight against the United States. President Obama should insist in his meeting with Prime Minister Maliki that U.S. forces retain custody of Daqduq and transport him to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

The detention of Daqduq touches on three important issues in the ongoing war on terror. First, with the withdrawal of our military presence from Iraq, the United States will lose the ability to detain enemy combatants such as Daqduq in Iraq. Current plans are for the U.S. military to have completed our transition to the security forces of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, and we should expect that we will lose the ability to detain enemy combatants there as well. Our military commanders in Afghanistan should therefore anticipate losing the ability to detain enemy combatants by that date. As we saw in the capture of Abdul Warsame, the Somali terrorist accused of providing materiel support to al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and Al Shaabab and detained on a U.S. Navy ship at sea, there remains a strong likelihood that our military and intelligence community will need a secure detention facility to house these foreign fighters. The issue is, what are you going to do with them.

Rather than being kept in military custody overseas, Warsame was flown to the United States and placed in the civilian system. But the logical place for long-term or indefinite detention of foreign fighters such as Warsame is not on a ship at sea or in our private prison system but rather, as I have said many times before, at the secure detention facility at Guantanamo.

Second, it is worth noting that the Obama administration has tied its own hands in the matter of indefinite detention of enemy combatants. The administration's plan to buy a prison in Illinois for conversion to a military detention facility makes clear that the President does not oppose law of war detention. He is fine with bringing foreign fighters into the United States and indefinitely detaining them in military facilities inside our borders, and yet he opposes detaining them indefinitely at the military facility in Guantanamo, where they will benefit from humane treatment but they won't enjoy the legal rights of detainees who are brought here, including the possibility of release into the United States.

Third, the Executive orders signed by the President in January in 2009 were issued with an eye toward fulfilling candidate Obama's campaign promises, rather than after conducting a serious review of sound counterterrorism policy. Now, 3 years after taking office, the President has had enough firsthand experience dealing with terrorism to know that many of the terrorists held at Guantanamo can't be sent back to places such as Yemen, where they are likely to return to the fight. But the President's own Executive orders have denied our military commanders and our intelligence community the certainty they need when they capture, detain, and interrogate terrorist suspects. His early Executive orders, for instance, ended the CIA's detention program and directed the closing of Guantanamo. The order to close Guantanamo makes little sense.

It is not Republicans who are tying the President's hands in prosecuting the war on terror. He did that himself with the shortsighted Executive orders he signed during his first days in office. As our country withdraws from Iraq and transitions further responsibilities to the Afghan security forces in Afghanistan, we will need a place to send foreign fighters such as Warsame and Daqduq. That place is the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

In his discussions with Prime Minister Maliki, the President should, of course, discuss the role the U.S. military will play in Iraq after the end of this year and how our two countries can work together to preserve the gains made through the sacrifice of so many brave Americans, and to combat Iranian influence. But in addition to these important matters, the President should also insist that the Prime Minister retain custody of Daqduq and send him to Guantanamo as soon as possible.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a respectable Kentucky veteran, Mr. Ledford ``Led'' Stephens. Ledford, who recently celebrated his 90th birthday, still remembers vividly the time he spent serving overseas in Europe during World War II.

Led grew up across the creek from Lower Cal Hill Cemetery in Pine Knot, KY. When he was 18 years old, he enlisted in the U.S. Army. After passing two physicals, Led was allowed to spend 2 weeks at home before he boarded a train at Stearns station to Fort Thomas. There he received his clothes and was then shipped to Fort Wheeler, GA, for basic training. After completing basic training, Led spent a short time at Camp New Jersey where he received his ``impregnated clothes,'' which were outfits that protected soldiers from gas--this was a clear indicator that he would eventually be shipped overseas.

A short time later, Led remembers boarding a ship in New York that sailed for 14 days and nights before finally reaching Casablanca, North Africa. After arriving, Led and his group were placed with the 3rd Division and sent to assist in the Invasion of Sicily. Led was assigned to the position of 30-caliber machine gunner on his team.

``From there, I went on to the Invasion of Italy. We went in there on a beach and fought our way up,'' Led recalls. ``I met a fellow from Frazer, Kentucky, and we both promised that we

would find each other's people back home if anything happened to either of us. It ended up that he was killed . . . I tried to find his people when I came back home, but I never could find them.''

The toil of war eventually took a toll on Led as well. During a battle, ``a shell went off close to me, and it did something to my ears,'' Led says. ``My face was numb . . . they loaded me into an ambulance and took me to the 106 Hospital in Naples, Italy.'' After that, Led spent time recovering in a rest camp and was taken out of combat and was assigned to a port battalion where he loaded and unloaded supplies.

After the war, Led received many medals and ribbons, including the Bronze Star for his service. Once he returned home to Kentucky, Led began a career as a coal-truck driver--he is also an ordained minister in his spare time. Around his 70th birthday, Led fell in love with Lois Neal, a girl he had known from his childhood. The two have been married now for over 18 years and reside happily together in their home in Pine Knot, KY.

I would like to ask that my Senate colleagues join me in thanking Mr. Ledford ``Led'' Stephens for his patriotism and selflessness. I commend Ledford for his service and accomplishments throughout his life--he is a true inspiration to Kentuckians everywhere. The McCreary County Voice in Whitley City, KY, recently published an article highlighting Ledford's honorable life and service. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the past 3 years, President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress have spent most of their time pushing policies that actually undermine the private sector. They may have the best of intentions, but the fact is they made a bad economy worse. Unemployment has now stood at 9 percent for more consecutive months than for any other period since World War II, and there are now more than 1 million fewer jobs in this country than when the President's first stimulus bill was signed into law.

So the American people gave the President a chance to do something about jobs and the economy and he failed. That is why last year the American people put Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives--so they could try a different approach, and that is what they have done. For nearly a year now, House Republicans have been following through on their pledge to put Americans back to work by passing bill after bill aimed at helping businesses create jobs.

The problem is, every time Republicans pass one of these bills over in the House, Democrats in the Senate refuse to take it up. The Democrats who run the Senate are letting all these bills die.

Some people want to know why this is happening. They want to know why the Senate will not take up these bills. The answer is actually pretty simple. President Obama and his political advisers have put out the word they do not want Congress to get anything done around here until after next year's election, so the President can go around on the bus and blame Congress for the country's problems, and Democrats in the Senate are lining up right behind him. They are doing the President's bidding.

But that is not stopping Republicans in the House from doing the work they were elected to do, and it is not going to keep the Republican minority in the Senate from calling on Democrats to act.

To date, House Republicans have passed more than 20 pieces of legislation designed to do two things: make it easier for small businesses to create jobs and bills that would pass on a broad bipartisan basis.

Last week, I highlighted 15 such bills the House had already passed and that Senate Democrats should take up. This week, Senate Republicans will highlight several additional such bills the House passed just last week. We are going to keep on talking about these bills until Senate Democrats realize there is no reason we shouldn't take them up, pass them on a bipartisan basis, and actually do something on jobs around here.

For nearly 3 years, President Obama has demanded we pass massive legislation he knows Republicans have problems with. What we are saying is, let's start with things that have bipartisan support and that we know can pass instead of that other approach.

Since Republicans control the House and Democrats control the Senate, we are not likely to agree on big partisan stuff. But there are a lot of other job-creating measures we actually could agree on. Why don't we focus on them? Let's work together on the things we can all agree on, as we did last month on the trade agreements.

Here is just one example out of many. Last week, the House passed a bill called the Small Company Capital Formation Act, H.R. 1070. It got 421 votes, including 183 Democrats. Only one person in the House voted against the bill.

Here is a jobs bill that is about as popular as Mother's Day. There is no reason not to pass it in the Senate right now. Right now, promising businesses aren't going public because they simply can't afford the high cost of managing the mountain of government paperwork they are required to under current law. So instead of going out there and raising money to grow and hire, they are holding back. They are not expanding and they are not hiring.

We recently heard from the CEO of a pharmaceutical company from Fort Washington, PA, who said companies such as his are at a major disadvantage if they come up with promising new drugs. He has at least one such promising new drug in the pipeline for chronic kidney disease but can't take it to the next level. If firms such as this want to expand and hire, they need to be able to raise capital from investors so they do not go into debt. But current law keeps them from doing so because of all the regulatory burdens that come along with it. I think we should be removing these barriers to growth for companies such as this one, and 183 Democrats in the House actually agree with me.

President Obama actually supports the idea too. He said so in his speech to a joint session of Congress back in September. So this bill is as bipartisan as it gets. One will not find a bill any more bipartisan than this--passed overwhelmingly in the House and supported by the President of the United States. The only thing standing in the way right now is Senate Democrats. They just will not take yes for an answer.

It is only a matter of time before the American people catch on to the Democrats' refusal to act. Once they do, Republicans will be ready with a long and growing list of bipartisan bills that have already passed the House and that we believe the President of the United States would sign. So let's not delay any longer. Let's stop the games, and let's do the work we were sent to do.

Mr. President, we are going to see very different approaches to infrastructure and job creation today. The American people can decide for themselves which one makes more sense.

The Republican proposal extends the current highway bill for another 2 years, giving States and contractors the certainty they need to start new infrastructure projects and to create jobs.

The legislation Senator Hatch is proposing today puts an end to the uncertainty for the next 2 years. This proposal also gives States the authority to decide how this money is spent. If folks in Ohio or Kentucky want to build a bridge, Washington can't force them to build a bike path.

The Republican proposal accelerates the review period and clears away the bureaucratic redtape. The President admitted a few months ago that the shovel-ready projects in his first stimulus bill didn't turn out to be as shovel ready as he thought. Our proposal helps make sure they are.

Our bill prohibits the EPA from imposing burdensome and unnecessary new regulations on American cement producers and domestic boilers, so the cost of American-made materials for the projects paid for through this highway bill don't skyrocket just as they are set to begin. The bill keeps those costs down.

Best of all, it is fully paid for through funds that were originally appropriated for another purpose but not spent. Whatever is left over after these projects are funded goes to pay down the deficit.

The Democrats are taking a different approach. First, according to the CBO, the Democrats' proposal will do little for the economy and putting people back to work in the short term, because the money will be spent very gradually. According to the CBO, less than one-tenth of the funds in the Democrats' proposal will be spent next year. Less than one-tenth of the funds in the Democrats' proposal, which we will be voting on today, will be spent next year, and roughly 40 percent won't be spent until after 2015. This hardly matches the President's call for doing something ``right away.''

Second, it costs another $57 billion we don't have.

Third, they want to pay for this temporary spending bill with a permanent tax increase on job creators. Again, they want to pay for a temporary spending bill with a permanent tax hike on job creators.

Fourth, they already know that Republicans and, yes, some Democrats, don't think we should be taxing job creators, particularly at a time when 14 million Americans are looking for a job--and that we will vote against any proposal that does so.

In other words, the Democrats have deliberately designed this bill to fail.

So the truth is that Democrats are more interested in building a campaign message than in rebuilding roads and bridges. Frankly, the American people deserve a lot better than that. The people of Kentucky deserve a lot better than that. The people in my State have serious, time-sensitive bridge projects--the Brent Spence bridge, I-69 bridge, Louisville bridges, and Sherman Minton bridge, which is currently shut down. They deserve better than that.

The Associated General Contractors of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have already spoken out against the Democrats' proposal.

The rest of the American people can decide which approach they prefer: our proposal, which doesn't add to the deficit, doesn't raise taxes, empowers the States to make decisions on the local level, and is designed to gain bipartisan support or the Democrats' top-down approach, which perpetuates uncertainty, raises taxes on businesses at a time when we should be giving them more reasons to hire, not less, and which was designed in coordination with the White House political team to fail.

These are the two approaches on display in the Senate today. The choice should be obvious.

My good friend has made a great campaign speech, but the election is in November of next year. If we want to accomplish something, we have to do it together. We have had a series of votes over the last few weeks clearly designed to fail. The proposal my good friend is talking about, in all likelihood, is going to have bipartisan opposition. It was not developed with Republican input, and it was not designed to get a positive outcome.

The House of Representatives, on 15 different occasions recently, has passed bills with bipartisan support--bipartisan support--that we are not taking up. One of them--the 3-percent withholding bill--enjoys the support of the President of the United States as well. So it is my hope that in the very near future we can figure a way to actually pass something together that would become law.

I wish we could put off the election until next year because these efforts to do these messaging amendments, as politically invigorating as it may be to the base of the Democratic Party, don't have anything to do with actually passing legislation that could have a positive impact. So we will have the two votes today, but I would urge my good friend to join me in looking for things on which there is enough bipartisan support to actually make a law, not just try to make a point.

I am sure it is the case that most Americans support raising taxes on high-income individuals. My guess is they might have a different view if they knew that four out of five of those individuals were actually business owners. Nevertheless, it is time, it seems to me, for us to quit making the campaign speeches and remember the election is in November 2012, not this month of 2011, and see if we can't work together to pass legislation the President can sign and that will help move the country in a different direction.

Mr. President, it is certainly the case the majority leader can always have the last word, but I would say, with all due respect to my friend, he just made another campaign speech.

I think what the American people would like to see us do is actually pass something together that will become law--pass something together that will become law. That is how to get an accomplishment out of the U.S. Constitution. That is how to send something to the President.

We know how to work together to make things happen. We have done that in the past. All I am suggesting is that the exercise we are going to have later today has nothing to do with making law and making a difference. It is about making a point. We both know how to do that. We both know how to make points and make laws. What we are doing later today is not about making laws.

I am told by staff I need to move to proceed to S. 1786.

Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding Kentuckian who dedicated his life to serving the children of Laurel County. Mr. Delmer Gross was a bus driver for the Laurel County Board of Education for 39 years and cherishes his memories driving kids to and from school--many of his former students are his good friends still to this day. In his spare time, Delmer serves as the pastor at London Community Church, a role he has enjoyed for almost 43 years.

Delmer started driving a school bus in 1969 when he was only 21 years old. He spent 5 years driving a double route as his first assignment. Each morning he would start by busing students in grades 1 through 12 to Swiss Colony. Then he would go to Mitchell Creek, located west of Interstate 75, and pick up elementary school students, only to return them to Swiss Colony via the road that is now Ky. 1956.

His second route took him all the way down to Rockcastle River and was much more dangerous because of the truck traffic. ``We didn't have a four-lane road then,'' Delmer recalls. ``There were a lot of crooked places where I had to pick up kids on the opposite side of a curve. I've had trucks slide at me sideways. A couple of times it was quite frightening.'' Delmer drove this route for almost 24 years before he began driving a town route with special-needs students in 1997.

One time, Delmer was driving on Ky. 1956 through freezing rain and snow and made a stop just under the crest of a hill. Two girls got off the bus just before a car came over the hill and barely stopped in time. Unfortunately, a second car came along and was unable to stop. It crashed into the back of the first, sending the car spinning into a driveway. The second car bounced into Delmer's lane as a result of the crash and hit the bus head-on, clipping one of the girls in the knee. Delmer went straight home, got in his car, and drove over to the little girl's house to help her father take her to the hospital. Thankfully, she walked away with only minor injuries.

Delmer deeply cherishes the countless memories that he made with the students he shuttled throughout his three-decade-long career, and he rarely had any disciplinary issues with any of the children. ``I had a good relationship with almost all of the students I hauled,'' Delmer said.

Madam President, Mr. Delmer Gross's dedication to his job and the safety of his students is admirable. I commend him for his 39 years of excellent service to the children of Laurel County schools. Delmer's career serves as an inspiration to the people of our great Commonwealth and exemplifies the true spirit of Kentucky. The Laurel County-area Sentinel Echo published an article in the spring of this year to honor Mr. Delmer Gross's achievements. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Madam President, there is no denying the fact that the policies of the past 2\1/2\ years have made a bad situation worse. For 2\1/2\ years, Democrats completely dominated this town. They got everything they wanted. And what happened? Unemployment has hovered at around 9 percent for 32 months. The so-called misery index is worse than it has been in more than 25 years. Consumer confidence is at levels last seen during the height of the financial crisis. But if one number really stands out, it is this: 1.5 million. That is the number of fewer jobs we now have in this country since the day President Obama signed his signature ``jobs bill'' into law.

These are just some of the numbers that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, read about every single day. But it is not the numbers that compel us to action; it is the stories that lie behind them. It is the millions of men and women who have seen their dreams shattered, their lives upended, and their potential unfulfilled.

What Republicans have been saying is that if we truly want to help improve the situation we are in, if we want to turn this ship around, then we need to learn from our mistakes and take a totally different approach. We know what policies haven't worked. We have tried that. What sense does it make to try those same policies again and again? That is why Republicans in the House and the Senate have been taking a different approach.

Democrats may control the White House, and they may control the Senate, but for the past 10 months Republicans in the other half of Congress have done their best to correct the mistakes and excesses of the previous 2\1/2\ years and set us on a different course.

They have done something else that Democrats have not done over the past few years: Week after week, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives has been passing bills that actually have a chance-- actually have a chance--of gaining bipartisan support and becoming law. They are actually trying to do something.

Unlike the President and the Democrats who run the Senate, House Republicans are designing legislation to pass rather than fail. They want to make a difference rather than make a point, and the only thing keeping these bills from becoming law is that the Democrats in the Senate will not take them up.

We know the President's strategy. His so-called jobs bill has one purpose and only one: to divide us. Just this morning I read a story that quoted some Democratic operative almost bragging about the fact they do not expect any of the legislation the President has been out there talking about on the bus tour to pass. They openly admit these bills are designed to fail.

It is not exactly a state secret that Republicans--and, yes, some Democrats--don't think we should be raising taxes right now on the very people we are counting on to create the jobs we need to get us out of the jobs crisis. Yet the one thing every single proposal Democrats bring to the floor has in common is it does just that.

So the Democrats' plan is to keep putting bills on the floor they know ahead of time we will vote against instead of trying to solve the problem. They do not even hide it. The President's top strategist actually issued a memo a few weeks ago stating the President would use this legislation not as a way to help people but as a way to pummel Republicans.

Meanwhile, House Republicans have passed bill after bill after bill actually designed to do something. On March 31 they passed H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. It got 57 Democratic votes--57 Democratic votes--in the House, a bipartisan bill that could pass and become law. On April 7 they passed H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act. It got 19 Democratic votes. The list goes on and on. There are 15 of these, Madam President--15 of them--that have passed, and each with significant Democratic support--one with 33, one with 28, one with 21, one with 23, one with 16, one with 10, and one with 47 votes.

So there are 15 of these bills that have passed the House with bipartisan support, and in the Senate we don't take up any of them because we are busy taking up bills that everybody knows are not going to pass.

This week, over in the House, they are going to pass four more bills making it easier to hire out-of-work Americans. Just last week, House Republicans passed a bill that would repeal a law requiring the IRS to withhold 3 percent of future tax payments from any company that does business with the government--a bill the President himself said he would be willing to sign into law, and 170 Democrats voted for it. So why don't we pass it in the Senate? The President is waiting to sign it.

This is just the latest example of a simple bipartisan bill that struggling businesses are begging us to pass but that Senate Democrats are holding up right now because it doesn't fit the story line.

I am not saying we have to vote on every one of the bills the House passed just as they are--there is an amendment process for that--but why not take them up? Every one would help create jobs, and none-- none--would raise taxes. That is what we call compromise. It is called finding common ground, and it is how the American people expect us to legislate.

What we are witnessing in Washington right now is two very different styles of governance: a Republican majority in the House that believes we should actually do something about the problems we face and which has put together and actually passed bipartisan legislation that would help address those problems, and a Democratic majority in the Senate that has teamed up with the White House on a strategy of doing nothing--nothing--all for the sake of trying to score political points and spreading the blame for an economy their own policies have cemented in place as they look ahead to an election that is still more than a year away.

The President's economic policies have failed to do what he said they would, and now he is designing legislation to fail. Americans are actually tired of failure. So Republicans are inviting Democrats to join us in succeeding at something--anything--around here that would make a difference.

I guess to sum it up, Madam President, what we are saying is, why don't we quit playing the political games? The problems we face are entirely too serious to ignore. Let's take up the bipartisan bills that House Republicans have already passed and actually do something. There is no better time to tackle the problems we face than now. Let's not squander this moment because some political strategist over in the White House is enamored with their own reelection strategy.

Let's take advantage of this moment to act when the two parties share power in Washington. As I often note, it is only when the two parties share power that they can share the credit and the blame. That is why some of the biggest legislative achievements have taken place at moments like this, and that is why I have been calling on Democrats in Washington--privately and publicly--for the past year to follow the example of those Congresses and those Presidents before us who were wise enough to seize an opportunity such as this one for the good of the country.

We face many serious crises as a nation. We know how to solve them. Let's not let this moment pass us by.

Madam President, I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to one of Kentucky's hardest working public servants at the end of a long career. Charles Frank Rapier, the executive director of the Appalachian high intensity drug trafficking area--that is kind of a mouthful, and we have a way to shorten that called Appalachia HIDTA--will be retiring this November after 46 years in law enforcement.

This guy is a bit of a legend, Madam President. Director Rapier-- called Frank by his friends--has been leading the Appalachia HIDTA Program since 2003. Prior to his appointment, he served as deputy director of that program for Kentucky. The Appalachia HIDTA Program was established in 1998 to combat one of our country's greatest problems: illegal drug trafficking and drug abuse.

The problem of drug abuse that Frank has pledged his career to fighting is particularly bad in my home State of Kentucky. Kentucky ranks in the top three of marijuana-producing States. More Kentuckians died of drug overdoses in 2009 than in fatal car crashes--an astonishing 82 per month. The threat from illegal meth use poses a problem across the State as well. This rampant drug abuse increases crime and destroys families in Kentucky.

Under Frank's leadership, the Appalachia HIDTA Program has attacked drug trafficking organizations in the tristate area of Kentucky, West Virginia, and Tennessee head on. And let me say, Madam President, he has done an amazing job, a truly amazing job.

Specifically, in 2009, Appalachia HIDTA disrupted or dismantled 82 separate drug trafficking organizations. That translates into hundreds of thousands of marijuana plants destroyed and hundreds of arrests. In 2006, they kept an estimated $1 billion worth of profits off of illegal drug activities out of the State of Kentucky.

Frank played an integral role in arranging a visit to Kentucky earlier this year by Gil Kerlikowske, the Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, better known as the Nation's drug czar. The Director's visit, which I was proud to help facilitate, has been an important step in maintaining our focus in Kentucky to stem drug abuse and save our family members, friends, and neighbors from the dangers of drug addiction and drug-related crimes during a time of shrinking Federal resources.

As a strong supporter of efforts to fight drug abuse in Kentucky, I have gotten to know Frank and have seen firsthand his efforts. He is a humble man, but he is highly respected in the law enforcement community throughout the State--and even the Nation, for that matter--for the wonderful job he has done. I know his dedication and leadership in this important fight against illegal drugs will be greatly missed.

Frank knows well the area he has worked so hard to protect. Born and raised in Corbin, KY, he received his

bachelor's degree from Eastern Kentucky University where he began his law enforcement service as an EKU campus police officer. He attended graduate school at Xavier University, served as an instructor at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Academy at Glynco, GA, has taught at numerous police academies, and has been a speaker at many law enforcement conferences.

Before working with Appalachia HIDTA, Frank was a special agent with the U.S. Treasury Department for 32 years. He was a member of the National Undercover Resource Pool and the National Response Team. Over the course of his long career, he has served many assignments with the U.S. Secret Service and State Department, including working as a member of the Southeast Bomb Task Force that investigated the Olympic bombing case in Atlanta in 1996.

While with the Treasury Department, Frank received four Special Achievement Awards, a Special Act Award, a Performance Award, and the Director's Award/Masengale Memorial Award.

After 46 years in law enforcement, I wish Frank congratulations on a job well done and best wishes in his retirement. Countless Kentuckians owe their thanks to Frank as well.

Frank regularly describes the practice of asking his granddad: What did you do in the war? He feels prepared to be asked the same question himself now as he nears the end of his career. He knows someday there will be an accounting. He has worked all his professional life so that his answer to that question can be: I fought back against a tide of illegal drugs and saved lives. He has certainly done that, and more.

I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in thanking Director Rapier for decades of service. The work he has done for so many years has created a safer, stronger Kentucky.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is no secret that Congress isn't winning any popularity contest these days. Americans are fed up with lawmakers who are either focused on the wrong thing or determined to block any serious reforms that would actually get at the root of the problems we face. That is why Republicans have been focused not only on legislation which we think has a good chance of jump-starting private sector job creation in this country but which also has a good shot at actually becoming law. Put another way, since taking back the majority this year, Republicans in the House of Representatives have focused not only on legislation which avoids the economic missteps of the previous 2\1/2\ years of Democratic control but legislation which also has a good shot of making it through a Democratic-led Senate.

You would never know it from listening to the President, but there has actually been a significant amount of bipartisan work that has been going on on Capitol Hill these days. House Republicans have passed bill after bill--many of them with solid bipartisan support--that would help spur private sector job creation and would help get this economy moving again, but the Democrats who have run the Senate for the past 5 years have ignored virtually all of it. Senate Democrats have decided it isn't in the interest of their party for Congress to get anything done right now. They have adopted a strict strategy of inaction. They simply won't take ``yes'' for an answer.

The contrast between Republicans who run the House and Democrats who run the Senate couldn't be starker. Since taking over the House this year, House Republicans have searched for areas of common ground and then invited Democrats who run the Senate to take them up and pass them and send them on down to the President for a signature. Almost every single time, Senate Democrats have said no.

House Republicans now count more than 15 pieces of legislation that would help us chart a very different path from the one the President and his Democratic-controlled Congress have charted over the past few years. This is legislation that would unlock America's energy resources, cut back on excessive regulations that are holding back job creation, and enable businesses, such as Boeing, to make their

own decisions about how and where to expand.

Just last week, the House passed a bill to get rid of an IRS withholding tax on businesses that do work for the government. More than 400 Members of the House voted for this bill, including 170 Democrats. Here is how one prominent Democrat described this bill:

The repeal of this requirement will free up small

businesses' cash flow, increasing their ability to add jobs

and to bid on new projects.

Republicans support this legislation. Democrats support this legislation. The President included this legislation in his own jobs bill, and he supports the bill that passed the House last week. There is no reason the Senate shouldn't take it up right now. This is one small thing we can do right now to reduce the burden on employers across the country. We came together to help them earlier this month by passing free-trade bills. Let's build on that success and pass this bill the job creators are telling us will help protect and create jobs.

Like Senate Democrats, the President may think he benefits from the appearance of inaction in Congress. That is why he is running around the country reminding people how bad the economy is instead of urging Democrats who run the Senate to work with Republicans who run the House. But with all due respect to the President, the American people already know the economy is in bad shape. That is not news to anybody. They do not need the President to tell them that. They live it. What they need is for the President to get his party to agree to something that helps.

I know Democrats will argue that our proposals for job creation wouldn't be their first choice. My response is that the Democrats had 3 years to do something about jobs and the economy. The President's signature jobs bill cost nearly $1 trillion, and 2\1/2\ years later there are 1\1/2\ million fewer jobs in this country than on the day that legislation was signed. So why don't we try a different approach? Let's try an approach that actually takes into account the concerns of struggling business owners who are ultimately going to lift us out of this jobs crisis. They have told us what they want. It is not a mystery what we need to do to help these folks create jobs. Temporary fixes and more stimulus bills isn't it.

So our message is this: The Democrats in Washington need to start taking ``yes'' for an answer. Republicans have put forward more than a dozen concrete proposals to spur job creation in this country that avoid the economic mistakes Democrats made over the past few years. We have done the hard work of legislating and looking for areas where the parties overlap on the issues. It is time for the President to signal to Democrats in Congress that it is OK to work with us.

Everyone knows the economy is in bad shape. What Republicans are saying is that higher taxes and more government spending isn't the way to help it. Everyone knows the Federal Government in Washington is spending way too much money, money it doesn't have. What Republicans are saying is that the solution isn't to spend even more. Everyone knows that if the two parties are going to come together and act, we need to design legislation that appeals to both sides, and that is exactly what Republicans are doing.

It is time to put the political playbook aside and actually take action. Republicans in the House are doing their job. It is time for the President and Senate Democrats to do theirs.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the finest charitable organizations serving the people of Kentucky, Mission of Hope, and its executive director, Mr. Emmette Thompson. Mission of Hope, located in Knoxville, TN, has been providing the impoverished children and families in the rural Appalachian communities of southeastern Kentucky and elsewhere with food, clothing, and other necessities for over 15 years.

Mission of Hope was founded in 1966 in response to a television broadcast entitled ``Hunger for Hope,'' in which anchor Bill Williams informed viewers of the destitution and poverty that affected families in the mountains and hills of southeastern Kentucky. The ``Hunger for Hope'' broadcast inspired founder Julie Holland to enlist the help of her church, Central Baptist of Bearden, to aid in handing out children's coats that had been donated by a local department store.

Since that first donation, Mission of Hope has grown to serve more than 17,000 people throughout more than 80 schools and organizations in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. Over 85 percent of the population in this region suffers from hunger and joblessness due to a depleted coal mining economy.

Mission of Hope's objective is to provide, every year, the hunger- stricken families of Appalachia with hope and the chance at a better life through evangelical Christian charitable ministries. By partnering with school family-resource centers and small community ministries, Mission of Hope is able to provide assistance to those children and families most severely impoverished, and donates new clothes, food, toys, and school supplies through organized programs and events.

In addition, Mission of Hope assists in the repairing of homes, and provides a $2,500 scholarship to 11 qualified students from schools in the region. They

operate basic health-care clinics thanks to the volunteer efforts of local medical professionals, and assist in the development of literacy and other skills in order to create new jobs.

Most importantly, however, the countless volunteers who work tirelessly to provide Mission of Hope's services receive the greatest possible reward for their efforts. The sense of gratitude that is visible in thankful children's eyes is what motivates the volunteers each and every day, and it is the satisfaction from this ``personal touch'' that drives the people of Mission of Hope and their cause.

``What we do wouldn't work in today's business world,'' says Mr. Emmette Thompson, who is fundamental to the organization's success. ``Our business model and the way we distribute our harvest wouldn't work in corporate America because it defies logic . . . I'd love to tell people that I speak to that we're working ourselves out of a job, but that would be a bold-faced lie.''

Mr. President, the charitable work that Mr. Emmette Thompson and Mission of Hope provide to the impoverished families of Kentucky and the Appalachia region is extremely honorable. I commend Emmette and the organization for their selfless devotion to this important cause. Organizations and people such as these embrace the spirit of Kentucky and continue to provide hope to the people of our great Commonwealth.

Mr. President, as we all know, the No. 1 issue on the minds of most Americans is jobs, and I think it is pretty clear both parties are focused on that issue right now.

I also think it is safe to say the two parties have a fundamentally different take on the solution. For Democrats, the solution, apparently, is to increase the number of people who work for the government. My good friend, the majority leader, made this pretty clear yesterday when he said the private sector ``is doing just fine'' and that the President's latest stimulus is focused on government jobs instead.

Republicans take a different view. We recognize that government has an

important role to play. We recognize the need for commonsense regulations to ensure the safety of our citizens and the preservation of our resources. But it has become increasingly clear to many Americans that Democrats in Washington have lost all sense of balance when it comes to both the size and the scope of the Federal Government in Washington.

Based on the letters I get and the people I meet, there is a growing sense out there that government regulations are simply and completely out of control and that this is one of the main reasons we are in this jobs crisis. There is a growing sense the reason for this is that lawmakers and bureaucrats in Washington have completely lost touch-- completely and totally lost touch--with the struggles folks outside the beltway are going through.

I saw yesterday that the Washington, DC, area now has the highest median income in the country. Washington, DC, the Nation's Capital, has the highest median income in the country. I have no doubt many of these people do good work, but the point is they are weathering this economic downturn pretty well. Not only are they making big salaries relative to the private sector, they are also holding on to their jobs. The unemployment rate for the country as a whole is 9.1 percent. For government workers it is about half that--4.7 percent.

With all due respect to my friends on the other side, it is the private sector that has been begging for mercy. It is the private sector that is being crushed by regulators in Washington. I don't think the solution to the crisis is to make the Federal Government even bigger.

When it comes to jobs, the primary role of government is to create an environment in which Americans and American businesses can grow and flourish without the heavy hand of government on their backs. We shouldn't be making it harder for people to do business and to prosper. We should be making it easier. Yet everywhere I go, from Silicon Valley to Kentucky coal mines, I hear the same thing: Get Washington off our backs. They are killing us with all these impossible demands. It is not the commonsense regulations they complain about; it is all the new burdensome, duplicative and, in some cases, impossible to comply with regulations. I have small business owners in Kentucky writing me to say they can barely get by as it is, and the EPA is harassing them with paperwork and threatening them with fines.

I mentioned a paper company the other day in Ohio that is shutting down because the EPA demanded they upgrade their boilers with a technology that doesn't even exist yet.

I know my Democratic colleagues hear these same complaints because they literally cut across party lines. One story I saw this week featured a Democratic mayor in Massachusetts telling Washington to back off.

Here is a woman who went to the President's inauguration, an Obama supporter, stood in the cold to witness it with her kids. And now she says she is losing her faith in government because the overzealous enforcement of brutal new fishing regulations is destroying jobs and forcing smaller players out of the business altogether.

Democrats hear stories such as this too, and their solution is that we should hire even more people who wake up every morning thinking about yet new ways to regulate private industry until they cry uncle. Our view is that we should actually listen to what people are asking us to do and to help them out, give them a break. It is time for government to help private sector job creators instead of looking for ways to punish them.

What we are doing is we are asking the Democrats to work with us on ways to help the private sector grow, because the fact is we are not going to get this economy going again by growing the government. It is the private sector that is ultimately going to drive this recovery.

Look, if big government were the key to economic growth, then countries such as Greece would be booming right now. If big government were the key to economic growth, Greece would be booming.

What we need to do is to focus on helping the private sector grow. I know the Democratic plan is to focus on their government jobs bill instead, to punish private sector job creators with yet another tax to subsidize even more temporary government jobs at the State level. But what I am saying is, let's put the government stimulus bills aside for a change and do something for the small business men and women in this country who are begging for mercy from their own government, right here in Washington.

There is a lot we can do. As I noted yesterday, the House has already passed three pieces of legislation this year alone, one as recently as last week, that would send an entirely different message to businesses. Every one of these bills to roll back excessive regulations by bureaucrats here in Washington got solid bipartisan support in the House of Representatives.

Last night, Senate Republicans also moved ahead on legislation that private contractors who do work for Federal, State, and local governments have been asking us to enact as a way to protect jobs. At a time when so many businesses are struggling to stay afloat--to literally stay afloat--the government shouldn't burden them even more by taking money out of businesses that they could use to invest and hire.

The best thing about this proposal is not only is it bipartisan, it is also part of the President's bill. So here is another example of something we could do for job creators that we know will actually be signed into law. And there is no reason I can think of that this legislation shouldn't get 100 votes in the Senate--a proposal supported by the President of the United States, passed with a large bipartisan majority in the House. Why don't we pass it? It is in the President's own bill, for goodness sake.

The White House said yesterday that every part of the President's bill is equally important. If that is true, let's pass this measure. This legislation should get unanimous support. So let's vote on this and the other bipartisan jobs legislation I have mentioned and then send them to the President for an actual signature, making a law instead of making a point.

It is time we showed people who are struggling out there that we are on their side, because right now I know a lot of them are having serious doubts. It is time we do something serious about jobs. The proposal I offered last night, with the support of my Republican colleagues, supported by the President of the United States, passed by a bipartisan majority in the House, would be a good step in the right direction.

Mr. President, the Senate Republican team is losing a key player today as we say goodbye to Lisa Wolski, chief of staff to the Republican whip, Senator Kyl.

Lisa has been a greatly valued adviser to me as well and to my entire team. We have always valued her intelligence, good strategic sense, and her sound judgment. She has worked extremely hard to make sure we always knew where the votes were, which is very important in this line of work. And, most of all, we appreciate very much the fact that she has done all this with great team spirit.

I want to thank Lisa for her hard work, for me and for the entire Republican team, and we wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. President, it is with sadness that I come to the floor today to commemorate a brave Kentuckian who lost his life in service to his country.

U.S. Army SPC Brandon S. Mullins of Owensboro, KY, was killed on August 25, 2011, in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, when insurgents attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. He was 21 years old.

For his heroic service, Specialist Mullins received several awards, medals, and decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the NATO Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

Brandon Mullins inherited a proud military tradition. He was the third generation in his family to wear the Nation's uniform. His father Thomas was a military police officer, and as a child Brandon and his brother Shaun used to love to play with his dad's old MP mementoes. They also loved to play on a World War II-era tank that was on display in a park near Brandon's childhood home.

As a kid, Brandon loved sports. Hockey was his favorite. He and his family enjoyed going to Nashville Predators games, but Brandon's favorite team was the Detroit Red Wings.

Brandon also played hockey in high school and was the MVP of his league. He thrived under pressure. One time, Brandon's team found itself in a shoot-out situation for victory in a high-stakes playoff game. Brandon asked his coach to put him in as the goalie. He wanted a chance to step up in a clutch moment for his teammates and, sure enough, his team won the game.

Brandon also enjoyed being outdoors. He was a hunter, a fisherman, and a hiker. His family described him as fearless when it came to physical challenges. He started rollerblading at the age of 4. He is remembered as high spirited, generous, and very popular.

Brandon's family was certainly not surprised when Brandon grew up and enlisted in the military. ``He wanted the tough job,'' his mother Catherine said. ``He wanted to fight. He was competitive.''

Brandon's brother Shaun had enlisted before him, and so in February 2010 Brandon enlisted in the Army. He deployed to Afghanistan in May of 2011 with Company C, 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, based out of Fort Wainright, AK. Once again, he thrived under pressure, this time in the demanding task of fighting for our country.

``Brandon matured very quickly,'' his father Thomas said.

From the time he entered basic training . . . you could see

a big change in his life. He was headed in the right

direction with his life.

Brandon loved being in the Army, and would send letters back home about how cool basic training was. Brandon's fellow soldiers quickly took to the new recruit from Owensboro.

``I can honestly say I've never met anyone like Mullins,''

said SSG Matthew Mills, Brandon's squad leader.

SPC Deroderick Jackson, another one of Brandon's fellow soldiers, said this:

He was just a big help to me. Every time he saw I had a

hard time, he made me smile and told me to get it together.

On a mission with the Afghan National Army, I was real tired

and they were going real fast and [Brandon] said, ``You've

got this, brother!''

Another fellow soldier, COL Todd R. Wood, recalls that Brandon:

. . . was best described as the epitome of selfless service--

he took on details others did not want, he did not complain,

he just did it, and usually with a smile. He carried the

heaviest loads and helped out everyone he could. He was

always concerned about others first.

Brandon's fellow soldiers also recall he had a fun side. ``I remember he was really goofy,'' said Private First Class Adam Baldridge.

One time I remember we got in trouble and we were getting

smoked until we almost had a tear rolling down our cheeks. He

just turned and looked at me and said, ``Just remember, they

can't smoke rocks.''

We are thinking of Brandon's loved ones today, as I recount his story for my colleagues in the Senate, including his parents Thomas and Catherine Mullins, his brother PFC Shaun Erik Mullins, his sister Bethany Rose Mullins, and many other beloved family members and friends.

This past September 11 was the tenth anniversary of the brutal terrorist attacks that ushered in a new era of military readiness and resolve for America. On that day, the Mullins family held a memorial service for Brandon. More than 800 people came to show their respects.

The funeral procession, led by 576 motorcycles, traveled from Good Shepherd Church to Owensboro Memorial Gardens at a slow, somber place-- taking 1 hour to drive 11 miles.

On that day, CPT Sean J. Allred of the 3rd Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment, wrote Thomas and Catherine Mullins a letter.

I hope that through writing this letter you may know how

your son lived as a warrior and will continue to live in our

hearts and in our victories.

Know that your son was a brother to all men in his Platoon

and all who knew him . . . Brandon was a credit to you and

how you raised him. I am forever indebted to him and will

honor his memory in future actions.

Captain Allred's sentiments are shared by this Senate. Our Nation can never repay the debt owed to Specialist Mullins or the sacrifice he made that weighs so heavily on his family. But we can honor his service and ensure that he will never be forgotten by his country. It is thanks to heroes such as SPC Brandon S. Mullins that America enjoys the freedoms we do today.