Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from New Hampshire and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from New Hampshire for the issue she has raised with regard to the proper way to treat enemy combatants. Her amendment, which we have been discussing off and on here on the floor today, has prompted predications of doom and gloom from our friends on the other side of the aisle, and a lot of very excited rhetoric.

To be clear, I would ask my friend from New Hampshire: Is it not true that the amendment she has offered does not apply to everyone-- absolutely everyone--who might be generally labeled a terrorist?

I ask my friend further, has the Congress authorized use of military force against al-Qaida and associated forces?

I cannot recall a time when Congress has declared we are in an armed conflict, has authorized the use of military force against the enemy in that conflict, and yet the executive branch has a bias against using the military for interrogation and, if need be, a trial of these enemy forces. Can the Senator from New Hampshire recall such an occasion?

Two days ago the President's top lawyer at the Pentagon defended the administration's decision for use of lethal force against an American citizen who was a member of al-Qaida. In doing so, he noted that using lethal force in such a case is perfectly appropriate because that person was an enemy combatant. Specifically, he said: Those who are part of the congressionally declared enemy do not have immunity if they are U.S. citizens.

Does it not strike my friend from New Hampshire as inconsistent for the administration to authorize lethal force against a member of al- Qaida even if he is a U.S. citizen because he is part of an enemy force as declared by the Congress but, on the other hand, not to trust the military to try by military commission members of the same enemy force who are foreign nationals?

The amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire to this appropriations bill makes clear that in the war on terror we remain at war with al-Qaida and associated groups, that these forces remain intent on killing Americans, and that in prosecuting this war, a higher priority should be placed on capturing enemy combatants, interrogating them for additional intelligence value and thereby targeting other terrorists. That is the purpose, as I understand it, of the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire. In military custody, our national security professionals would have a choice of prosecuting enemy combatants in a military commission, detaining them under the law of war, and periodically questioning them for intelligence as new information is developed without them being all lawyered up.

Well, of course, the Senator from New Hampshire is entirely correct. President Obama has unilaterally restricted the tools available to him for combating terrorism, including by ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay prior to having any plan for dealing with the population of the Yemeni detainees who are almost certain to return to the fight if they are released from Guantanamo Bay.

It seems that once the President shut down the ability of the CIA to detain enemy combatants and refused to transfer further detainees from Guantanamo Bay, that many of us were waiting for the obvious test case to come along in which a terrorist was captured outside Iraq or Afghanistan and needed to be interrogated and detained.

I know the Senator from New Hampshire is a member of the Armed Services Committee. Does she recall the case of Mr. Warsame, the Somali terrorist captured at sea?

Would the Senator yield for a question?

I have heard it argued on the floor here in connection with this issue that somehow because the Christmas Day bomber pleaded guilty in an article III court, that was an argument for putting him in the article III court. As a distinguished former prosecutor, I wonder if my friend from Alabama could address the issue of whether because somebody happened to end up in an article III court and happened to plead guilty, how that was an argument for his placement there in the first place.

Will my friend further yield for a question?

I have heard it said on the floor that because a number of terrorists have been tried in article III courts in the past--and I have heard people add up the number of times--that is somehow an argument for continuing to do it.

Is it not the case, I ask my friend from Alabama, that we just set up these military commissions a few years ago at the insistence of the Supreme Court in order to deal with this issue, and only since that time have we had a defined alternative for dealing with these enemy combatants who are also not citizens of the United States?

I ask my friend, is it not also the case that the amendment of Senator Ayotte has in it a national security waiver? I have heard it said that we have eliminated all the President's options. Is it not the case that even if the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire were adopted and the President felt strongly, for some reason--it's hard for me to contemplate such a set of circumstances, but it is possible--he could, in fact, issue a national security waiver and go ahead and do it anyway, could he not?

I have also heard it said--I am going to pose another question to my friend--that it is kind of ludicrous to assume this ultimately leads to reading Miranda rights to a foreign terrorist on foreign soil. I think it strikes the Senator from Kentucky that that might be the logical extension of where we are going. If, in fact, we are saying that, routinely, foreigners, enemy combatants are going to be mainstreamed into article III courts, when do these protections, if you will, we afford to American citizens under the Constitution attach?

So would it not be the case, then, that all of these issues in terms of the timing of the attachment of these rights would soon be before courts in the United States for interpretation-- ultimately, I guess, by the Supreme Court--as to at what point do these rights now afforded a foreign enemy combatant attach?

I thank the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. President, I am just going to make one final point on this issue, and then I want to address another amendment we will be voting on at some point.

One thing we have not discussed is what happens if the foreign enemy combatant in the article III court in the United States is actually acquitted. If he is, he, of course, has to be released. The deportation option is only available if some other country is willing to take him. There is not a whole lot of clamoring for these kinds of folks anywhere else in the world. We have had that experience. The courts then cannot keep them. They are released into the United States as a result of an acquittal in an article III court in the United States, and there is a situation where you cannot deport them because no one will take them.

I think the point is that this is all totally unnecessary. These are foreigners; these are not citizens of the United States. They have no right to be in an article III court. We don't dispute that the President can put them in an article III court, but why would he want to do that? We responded to the decision of the Supreme Court to set up these military commissions for this precise purpose, and it is clear this administration does not want to use them.

I also would like to make some brief comments about a matter we will be voting on later this evening. Everybody here in this body knows the American people want us to do something about the jobs crisis. What Republicans have been saying is that raising taxes on business owners is not the way to do it. So what we have done is we have combed through the President's latest stimulus bill looking for things we can actually support, for things that do not punish the very people we are counting on to create jobs. In other words, since the President never asked if there was anything in this legislation we could support, we have actually done it ourselves.

It turns out there is a very sensible provision in the President's second stimulus bill that would help businesses across the country. In fact, it is absolutely identical to a bill Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts introduced with 30 cosponsors earlier this year, many of them Democrats, among them Senators Franken, Begich, Klobuchar, Pryor, Tester, and McCaskill. They are all cosponsors of Senator Scott Brown's bill.

What this bill does is it repeals an existing requirement that government agencies at the State, local, and Federal level withhold 3 percent of every payment to any contractor with whom they do business. This is money contractors may very well end up getting back from the IRS at some point long after the job is done, but in the meantime the government gets to hold on to it instead of allowing the businesses to invest it in jobs and the economy. This is money these companies could be putting toward hiring workers and growing their businesses, but it is going to the IRS instead, basically as a zero-interest loan to the Federal Government here in Washington.

I know Members on both sides of the aisle are hearing from constituents about how burdensome this regulation is. That is why President Obama himself already embraced delaying its implementation in his first stimulus bill and proposed delaying it again in his latest stimulus bill. That is why Senator Scott Brown got so many Democratic sponsors when he proposed a full repeal.

Like the President's bill, this bill is fully offset, and the offset we are proposing has been supported by our friends across the aisle. In fact, the last time I saw a vote, I think 81 Senators actually voted for it. So the bill we are proposing is bipartisan. The offset we are proposing is bipartisan. There is no reason in the world that our Democratic friends, including the President, certainly, should oppose it. If delaying this legislation was a good idea before, repealing it should be an even better idea now. The bill is supported by hundreds of business groups representing job creators across America. We should come together and act right now and make it easier for them to create jobs for a change, and not harder.

The President asked us to come together and pass pieces of this bill. Here

is one that all Senators should be able to agree on. Let's vote on it and prove the skeptics wrong by acting in a bipartisan fashion on something that the job creators in this country actually want.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would ask my friend, did you propound a consent agreement?

Fair enough. I want to echo the comments of the majority leader. In my time in the Senate some of our best work has been done on Thursday night. Usually when we are passing bills around here, we are working on Thursdays into the evening and finishing them. It is my hope that we will continue on that path and finish this bill tonight. Frequently coming back on Friday is counterproductive, and I would encourage all of the Members to cooperate to the greatest extent possible. I think we were, the last time I checked, making progress toward getting a lot of amendments in the queue hopefully to be voted on tonight.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this would implement a tax increase. It also would be subject to the same blue-slip concern the majority leader expressed with regard to the vote we are going to have on the 3-percent withholding. Therefore, I object.

May I respectfully make one suggestion. Three options: Stick to 10 minutes, we can voice vote, or we can withdraw, all of which would rapidly speed up the process.

Madam President, I rise to mourn the passing of a great American and a man who did much to benefit the people of Kentucky as well as Ohio. Carl Henry Lindner, Jr., was Greater Cincinnati's most successful entrepreneur and a self-made man. He passed away this October 17. He was 92 years old.

Carl Lindner was born in Dayton, OH, in 1919, the son of a dairyman. He quit high school to help out in his father's dairy. That store grew into United Dairy Farmers, a chain of dairy and convenience stores that many northern Kentuckians frequent to this day to buy their famous ice cream.

Mr. Lindner made much of his living in the banking and insurance business. His name became famous across northern Kentucky and Ohio and nationwide as the owner of the Cincinnati Reds from 1999 to 2005. Carl also ran an amusement park and his hometown newspaper, the Cincinnati Enquirer.

Always the optimist, Carl was famous for carrying cards with him that he would hand out to anyone he met with motivational sayings printed on them. One frequent version of the card would read: ``Only in America! Gee, am I lucky!''

Carl spent much of his time working for his community, bringing thousands of high-paying jobs to Cincinnati and northern Kentucky. He has been called a ``one-man Chamber of Commerce.'' He also was renowned for his philanthropic efforts. He gave generously of his time and resources to charities, churches, universities, museums, organizations serving the underprivileged, and even children in Sri Lanka orphaned by the 2005 tsunami.

I had the benefit of knowing Carl for a long time very well. He was an amazing man, and his loss will be deeply felt by many. Elaine and I send our condolences to his wife Edyth; his sons, Carl III, Craig, and Keith; his 12 grandchildren, 5 great grandchildren, and many other beloved family members and friends.

The passing of Carl Lindner is a true loss for the people of northern Kentucky, Ohio, and the Nation. I know my Senate colleagues join me in remembering and honoring Carl for his very American success story, his service to his community, and the example he leaves behind for others of a full life well lived.

Madam President, the Cincinnati Enquirer recently published an obituary of Carl Lindner. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in full in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute and respect to an accomplished Kentuckian and photo-journalist, Mr. Edward Reinke of the Associated Press. Mr. Reinke tragically passed away on October 18 after an accident several days earlier while he was covering the IndyCar race at Kentucky Speedway in Sparta, KY. He was 60 years old.

Ed Reinke was a mentor to countless photographers throughout his illustrious career and leaves behind him a legacy in the photo- journalism industry that is admired and respected throughout the world.

Edward J. Reinke was born and raised in Howard County, Indiana, and was a graduate of the University of IN. Ed began his photo-journalism career as an intern with the Cincinnati Enquirer in 1972. Ed worked as a full-time staffer until 1979 when he left to work for the Associated Press in Cincinnati. Ed also spent several years in the Washington, DC, bureau and on August 31, 1987, he came to Louisville, where he became the Associated Press's first staff photographer in Kentucky in 25 years.

During his 25-plus-year career, Ed built an impressive network of Kentucky AP-member photographers who encourage and help each other to this day by contributing pictures that can be shared among all AP- member newspapers. ``He was the hub of a very close-knit community,'' said John Flavell, Ed's personal friend of 25 years and photo editor at the Daily Independent in Ashland, KY.

Ed was driven by the philosophy that good photographers make themselves better by making pictures that mattered over long periods of time. He spent each day attempting to fulfill his motto: ``You don't just take pictures, you make good pictures.'' And Ed did just that.

He was often selected for special events around the world such as Super Bowls, World Series championships, Final Four tournaments, Summer and Winter Olympics, Masters and PGA Championships, President Bill Clinton's first inauguration, and Hurricane Andrew. In Kentucky, Ed was the Associated Press's lead photographer for almost every major event in my State's modern history, including the 2006 crash--of Comair Flight 5191, the 1988 Carrolton bus crash the Nation's deadliest drunk- driving accident--and the Kentucky Derby every year since 1988.

In stark contrast to covering these somber and significant events, Ed had also had the remarkable ability to find the ``quiet dignity'' in tobacco farmers, racetrack workers, and short-order cooks. Ed was a man of passion and compassion, and his life revolved around his commitment to his family and his work. ``His family was most important to him and he wasn't shy about telling it to those who understood,'' said Flavell. ``It was his family that made him.''

``There's a big black hole in my soul and at the center of the photo- journalism universe with Ed Reinke gone, but it's his influence that will shine the brightest,'' Flavell says in remembrance of his friend.

Mr. President, I would ask my Senate colleagues to join me in extending my greatest condolences to Mr. Reinke's mother, Margaret L. Harmon Reinke, his wife, Tori, and his two sons, Wilson and Graham, for their loss. Edward J. Reinke was a true inspiration to the people of our great Commonwealth, and photo-journalists throughout Kentucky and the rest of the world owe him a debt of gratitude for the work and legacy he leaves behind.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article appearing in the Ashland Daily Independent highlighting Ed's life and achievements be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I want to make a couple of observations this morning about what is going on in Washington at the moment and what is not. What is going on is that Democrats are obsessed for some reason with raising taxes. That is the only possible way to explain their latest idea to impose a permanent tax hike on about 300,000 U.S. business owners and then use the money to bail out cities and States that cannot pay their bills. That is the proposal we will be voting on apparently tomorrow.

I do not know if our friends on the other side have noticed, but Washington cannot pay its own bills right now. Think about it. The Federal Government spent $3.6 trillion last fiscal year, a new all-time record. And in the wake of the single largest spending year in history, Democrats want to put together another bailout.

Add up the projected deficits of all 50 States this year and you get $103 billion. That is all 50 States' deficits added up. Well, what about us? What about us here in Washington? We are expected to run a deficit of $1.3 trillion. Washington needs to prove it can get its own house in order before it starts demanding more money from job creators and throwing together another bailout.

This is the third time in 3 years the President has asked us to bail out the States. How many more times? And how many more billions before someone realizes this is a very bad idea? More bailouts. More bailouts are not going to solve the problem. They will just enable it.

But the bottom line is this: Everyone knows the last thing you want to do in a jobs crisis is raise taxes. It is common sense. The President himself has said as much. But for some reason he is determined to keep trying anyway. And Republicans are not about to go along with it. So Democratic leaders in Congress have decided to do nothing instead. If they do not get their tax hike, then they do not want to do anything at all. That is why rather than working with us on legislation that would get the government out of the way so the private sector can create jobs, including legislation that is in the President's own bill, they have

choreographed a political sideshow this very week.

Here is how it works: The President proposes a stimulus bill and calls it a jobs bill. Congress rejects it in a bipartisan way for very sensible and straightforward reasons. The President then goes on a bus tour to criticize Republicans for voting against the so-called jobs bill. Democratic leaders consult with the White House on breaking the same bill into smaller pieces. And how do they break it up? By identifying parts they know Republicans will oppose, then add the tax hike just to make sure. Then another bus tour or a press conference with the President complaining about Republicans again. Repeat for 13 months in the hopes that Americans will forget they are all now living under the economic policies that were enacted during the first 2 years of the Obama administration, and hope for success. That is the game plan. In other words, they are actually designing legislation on the other side to fail so they will have someone else to blame for the economy 13 months from now. That is what is going on in the Senate this week.

So what is not going on? What is not going on is the kind of bipartisan cooperation Americans want. My friend the majority leader is out there telling people the Republicans are rooting for the economy to fail. Nothing could be further from the truth. Look, if Republicans wanted the economy to fail, we would all line up behind the President's economic policies rather than opposing them, because they have not solved this jobs crisis we have been in. We have done that.

The President got everything he wanted the first 2 years he was in office. So I think it is time Democrats realize they were elected to lead, not to choreograph political theater. It is completely preposterous. At a time when 14 million Americans are looking for a job in this country, for the President to be riding around on a bus saying we should raise taxes, it is completely preposterous for the President to be riding around on a bus saying we should be raising taxes on the very folks who create jobs.

Think about that. We have 14 million people out of work and two self- identified conservatives for every liberal in this country, and the President is out there doing his best Howard Dean impersonation. He is completely out of touch. Let's forget about the tax hikes.

Let's drop the talking points about millionaires and billionaires and let's work together on bipartisan jobs legislation that is designed to pass, not designed to fail.

Republican leadership in the House and Republican leadership here in the Senate has been crystal clear. We are ready to work with the White House on legislation on which we can all agree. The two parties did it last week on trade bills. There are other areas where we can do the same.

The House voted on three bills this year, one as recently as last week, to roll back excessive regulations by bureaucrats in Washington who are destroying jobs and threatening to put even more Americans out of work. All three of those House bills got solid bipartisan support. Why do we not have those votes in the Senate and show that we can work together to help businesses create jobs? Let's park the campaign bus, put away the talking points, and do something to address the jobs crisis.

The American people want action. The election is 13 months away. Why do we not do what we were elected to do?

If I can make just a couple remarks.

We do have a number of amendments pending, and we are working our way in the direction of getting back to a normal process. I share the majority leader's hope and his view that we will have a number of votes, hopefully tomorrow, as a result of an agreement we are working on.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to Calendar No. 205, S. 1726, and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Cloture Motion

I now withdraw my motion to proceed.

Mr. President, I rise to mourn the passing of a great American and a man who did much to benefit the people of Kentucky as well as his native Ohioans, Mr. Carl Henry Lindner Jr. Carl Lindner was greater Cincinnati's most successful entrepreneur and a self-made billionaire. He passed away this October 17. He was 92 years old.

Carl Lindner was born in Dayton, OH, in 1919, the son of a dairyman. He quit high school to help out in his father's dairy store. That store grew into United Dairy Farmers, a chain of dairy and convenience stores that many northern Kentuckians frequent to this day to buy their famous ice cream.

Mr. Lindner made much of his fortune in the banking and insurance business. His name became famous across northern Kentucky and Ohio and nationwide as the owner of the Cincinnati Reds from 1999 to 2005, when he also served as that organization's CEO. Carl Lindner also in the past bought and sold Kings Island amusement park, Provident Bank, and the Cincinnati Enquirer newspaper.

Always the optimist, Carl was famous for carrying with him cards that he would hand out to anyone he met, with motivational sayings printed on them. One frequent version of this card would read, ``Only in America! Gee, am I lucky!''

Carl put his great wealth to use benefitting his community, bringing thousands of high-paying jobs to Cincinnati and northern Kentucky. He has been called a ``one-man chamber of commerce.''

He also generously gave millions of dollars a year to various charitable causes, including, but certainly not limited to, the Lindner Center of HOPE behavioral health center, the University of Cincinnati College of Law, the Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal, the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, the Cincinnati Reds, the Western & Southern Open, Fort Washington Way, the Bond Hill/Roselawn library, the West End YMCA, and the necklace lights on the cables of the Roebling Suspension Bridge.

I had the benefit of knowing Carl quite well. He was an amazing man, and his loss will be deeply felt by many. Elaine and I send our condolences to his wife Edyth, his sons Carl III, Craig, and Keith, his 12 grandchildren and 5 great-grandchildren, and many other beloved family members and friends.

The passing of Mr. Carl Henry Lindner Jr. is a true loss for the people of northern Kentucky, Ohio, and the Nation. I know my Senate colleagues join me in remembering and honoring Carl for his very American success story, his service to his community, and the example he leaves behind for others of a full life well lived.

Mr. President, the Cincinnati Enquirer published recently an obituary for Mr. Carl Lindner. I ask unanimous consent that said article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a fine Kentuckian and an outstanding educator, my friend Dr. Julia Link Roberts. Dr. Roberts is the Mahurin Professor of Gifted Studies at Western Kentucky University and the executive director of the Center for Gifted Studies, a leading Kentucky institution devoted to providing opportunities to gifted students for over 30 years.

Dr. Roberts's stature in her field was recognized recently when she was presented with the Acorn Award by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. She is the only professor this year from a 4- year institution to be so honored.

Dr. Roberts has been recognized for her excellence before. In 2001, she received the very first David W. Belin Advocacy Award from the National Association for Gifted Children. She was named as one of the 55 most influential people in the field of gifted education by Profiles of Influence in Gifted Education in 2004.

In addition to her work at WKU and with the Center for Gifted Studies, Dr. Roberts was the driving force behind the creation of the Carol Martin Gatton Academy of Mathematics and Science in Kentucky, an outstanding school that provides the opportunity for gifted students from across the State to spend their junior and senior years at WKU taking college-level courses. Newsweek magazine recently named the Gatton Academy one of America's top five high schools.

Thousands of Kentucky's brightest, most promising students have come closer to realizing their full potential thanks to the guidance and direction of Dr. Roberts. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them and can truly say they are among the finest Kentucky has to offer.

I want to offer her my sincerest congratulations on the well-deserved honor of winning the Acorn Award. It is only the most recent affirmation of the great contribution she has made to the Commonwealth, her students, and the field of education. I am sure her husband, Dr. Richard Roberts, and their children and grandchildren and extended family are very proud of her and all she has achieved.

The Bowling Green Daily News recently published an article recognizing Dr. Julia L. Roberts's remarkable career in education and her most recent achievement in winning the Acorn Award. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, it is no secret that the vast majority of Americans are not happy with Washington right now. They say 13 percent of the public approves of Congress, and I have not met any of those people.

It is also no secret that the President of the United States is trying to use the displeasure of Washington for political gain. I think that is a pretty sad commentary on the state of affairs over at the White House lately. As the only person elected to represent every American, the President should speak for all Americans, especially in times of crisis, not divide them for short-term partisan political gain.

But it is perfectly obvious why the President would find the path of division appealing, because on the No. 1 issue we face, jobs and the economy, the President's policies have not worked as advertised. After nearly 3 years in office, he has failed to make any progress on his promises to turn the jobs crisis around. I think we can pretty much sum up that failure with a single number, 1.5 million. That is how many fewer jobs there are right now in America since the President signed his first stimulus, according to the Obama administration's own Labor Department--1.5 million.

So what is the President trying to do? Well, he is trying to change the topic. He wants to deflect attention from that 1.5 million job loss. He wants to think the problem is not his policies, it is those mean Republicans in Congress who oppose them. But the President leaves a few things out of the reelection script he brought along on his bus tour.

First of all, it was not just the Republicans who defeated his latest stimulus bill last week. The only reason a majority of Democrats voted to debate it is they knew they would not have to vote on it. That is why the majority leader repeatedly moved to block a vote on the measure itself, the actual proposal.

Second, we are now living under economic policies that President Obama himself put in place. This is not something you will hear on the bus tour, but let's be clear. The President got everything he wanted from a Democratic-controlled Congress during the first 2 years of his presidency. He owned the place.

Now we are living with the hard realities that those policies have brought to bear on the American worker. So at this point, anytime the President says ``pass this bill,'' people have a very good reason to be skeptical, because this is not the first time President Obama demanded that Congress pass what he calls a jobs bill. But if this one were to pass and it worked as advertised, then it would be the first one that did.

Again and again, the President's response to America's ongoing jobs crisis has been to insist that Congress pass some urgent piece of legislation right away or an even worse calamity would result. Those bills were supposed to create jobs and prevent layoffs as well.

But he keeps coming back for more. I guess the President is counting on the American people to forget that part. He is counting on us to forget about the other stimulus legislation he has already signed into law and that has failed to live up to its hype every single time.

Again and again the President has demanded that Congress do something to create jobs, and the only thing we seem to end up with at the end of the day is more debt, more government, and fewer jobs. So let's review the record for a while.

Two and a half years ago, President Obama went down to Florida and said the first stimulus--the nearly $1 trillion government spending bill he signed shortly after taking office--would save or create millions of jobs, including jobs for firefighters, nurses, police officers, and teachers.

Well, what happened? The States got their bailout, the national unemployment rate didn't budge, and a year and a half later the President was back asking for another one. That is right, a year and a half after the first stimulus,

the White House was back last August saying they needed another $26 billion right away or else 160,000 teachers would get pink slips and police and firefighters across the country would literally be off the job. What happened then? Well, the States got another bailout. The unemployment rate didn't budge. And now the President is riding around on a bus saying that if they don't get another one, teachers, police, and firefighters will lose their jobs again.

Does anybody notice a pattern? We have been doing this for nearly 3 years now--3 years. It doesn't work as advertised. Bailouts don't solve the problem. In fact, they perpetuate it. Yet all we get from the President and Democrats in Congress is do it again, do it again, or else.

We have been mired in a jobs crisis for 3 long years now, and all the Democrats ever want to do is throw more taxpayer money at it. It never works the way they claim it will. Yet they want to keep on doing it-- with other people's money. Just throw another bailout together, slap the word ``jobs'' on the cover page, and dare people to vote against it. That is, apparently, the Democrats' governing philosophy--3 years into this jobs crisis. It would not be irresponsible to oppose an approach such as this; it would be irresponsible to consider it. It didn't work the first time. It didn't work the second time. The third time won't be a charm. That is why Republicans and a growing number of our Democratic friends want a different approach. There is a growing bipartisan opposition to trying the same failed policies again.

There is bipartisan opposition to raising taxes, especially at a time when 14 million Americans are out of work. If there is one thing we should agree on now, it is that we should be making it easier for businesses to hire, not harder. So the President should drop his obsession with raising taxes, and if he really wants to create jobs, maybe he should consider doing something different.

We have tried the bailout approach. We have tried more regulations, more debt, and more taxes. Why don't we try a new idea for a change, one that has bipartisan support, one that isn't a two-time proven failure? Let's try something that might actually work because the American people didn't send us here to kick our problems down the road. They certainly didn't send us here to repeat the same mistakes over and over and then stick them and their children with the tab. That might be how you maintain a sense of urgency--by failing to solve the problem the first two times around--but it is not how you solve a jobs crisis. The American people simply deserve better than this. They deserve better than the false promises they have been getting.

The President got everything he wanted from a Democratic Congress for 2 years--everything he wanted: a health care law designed to take over one-sixth of the entire economy; a financial reform bill that punishes businesses that had nothing to do with the financial crisis; out-of- control regulations that are forcing otherwise healthy businesses to shut down, businesses such as Smart Papers in Hamilton, OH, a paper mill that said last week it is shutting down because of onerous new Federal regulations that make it too costly to do business; and a trillion-dollar stimulus that was supposed to solve the jobs crisis 2\1/2\ years ago.

For 2 years, when the President said: Pass this bill right away, Democrats did it. Here is what they got, despite all that: trillions in debt and more than 1\1/2\ million fewer jobs. And that is after the President got everything he wanted for 2 whole years. We don't need any more of that. We can't afford more of the same.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

Am I correct, I would say to my friends from South Carolina and New Hampshire and Arizona, that because of the administration's opposition to a detainee treatment provision that was, I gather, approved overwhelmingly in the Armed Services Committee, we will for the first time deny everybody in the Senate an opportunity to offer any amendments on any subject with the DOD authorization bill and, in fact, will not consider it on the floor of the Senate for the first time in four decades?

Mr. President, I am not sure who has the floor, but I would say, in response to my friend from Georgia----

There may have been examples, but I am hard pressed to think of one recently. The tradition of passing the Defense authorization bill is there for a good reason. The national defense of the United States is the most important thing the Federal Government does. The committee upon which the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from New Hampshire serve is expert on this matter, and I find this truly astonishing.

It is consistent, however, I must say with the pattern around here in recent times: no amendments, fill up the tree, deny the majority and the minority--in this case, both the majority and the minority--the opportunity to have any input on a piece of legislation that determines what we do on the Federal Government's most important responsibility.

I think this is another example of the way the Senate has deteriorated into operating like the House, and it is an extremely bad direction for this institution and for the American people.

Finally, I would ask both the Senator from Arizona, who has been our leader on national defense issues, and the Senator from New Hampshire: Is the basis of this that the administration wants to establish the precedent that they can capture enemy noncombatants anywhere in the world and send them straight into the United States into an article 3 court? Is that the crux of this, I would ask my friends?

Could I ask the Senator from New Hampshire, a former attorney general, a further question?

Does this not lead, inevitably, in the further direction of a mindset that would say, on the battlefield, if you capture an enemy combatant-- and that enemy combatant is, inevitably, on the way to an article 3 court--could it lead to the feeling that that enemy combatant should be read his Miranda rights on the battlefield, if he is viewed as an individual who is on the way to a U.S. court under U.S. law? Where does it end, I ask my friend from New Hampshire?

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the Honorable Judge David A. Tapp, an exemplary Kentuckian and recent recipient of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, NADCP, prestigious ``All Rise Leadership Award.'' Judge Tapp currently serves as a circuit court judge for Lincoln, Pulaski, and Rockcastle Counties in my home State of Kentucky.

Judge Tapp was honored at the NADCP Annual Training Conference that was held in July in Washington, DC. The annual conference is considered the world's largest on substance abuse and the criminal justice system. Chris Deutsch, director of communications for the NADCP, praised Judge Tapp for being an outstanding ambassador for drug courts both in Kentucky and around the world saying, ``It is an honor for the NADCP to present Judge Tapp with this award.'' Judge Tapp was recognized alongside actors Martin Sheen, Matthew Perry, and Harry Lennix during the closing ceremony of the event.

Let me add here that I had the pleasure of seeing Judge Tapp here in Washington this past July when he attended the NADCP conference. I was honored to be presented with the NADCP's ``All Rise Leadership Award,'' and one of those presenters was Judge Tapp himself. I am a longtime supporter of Kentucky's drug courts and was pleased to meet with Judge Tapp and his fellow Kentucky drug court judges on this important issue. He is truly an impressive fellow.

In addition to his regular duties as a circuit judge, Judge Tapp volunteers his time in presiding over the drug court for the three counties and has been doing so since 2005. The drug court is similar to some 2,700 others nationwide and serves seriously drug-addicted individuals through intense treatment and supervision, says Judge Tapp.

``I do drug court for the small moments,'' said Tapp. ``At some point during the process you look at them and you see a new confidence. You see a gleam in their eye that wasn't there before, and you know that they get it. I take great pride in these efforts and applaud the hard work and dedication of all drug court staff members. These people volunteer their time and effort to do good deeds for thousands of people within the Commonwealth annually and they get almost no recognition for these efforts. They deserve a great amount of credit.''

I would ask all of my Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating the Honorable Judge David A. Tapp in receiving such a distinguished award for his efforts in rehabilitating drug offenders. Judge Tapp's work in drug court is commendable and he has served as a model for others in Kentucky and around the country. The Pulaski County Commonwealth Journal published an article in September highlighting Judge Tapp's accomplishments. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a native Louisville business that is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, Louisville Plate Glass, and the company's owner, my good friend, Bill Stone. Louisville Plate Glass specializes in custom glass products such as laminated and insulated glass and was founded in 1911. The company is among an elite group of Louisville firms that have survived 100 years of business success.

Louisville Plate Glass has been hit hard by the struggling economy and faltering housing market that we are all familiar with, due to its close attachment to the real estate industry. Owner Bill Stone, 75, reclaimed ownership of the business in 2009 in order to ensure the business stays afloat. At the time, Bill was a partner in parent company United Glass Corp. when it announced its plans to sell Louisville Plate Glass to consolidate the company's business into other holdings outside the State.

Bill's pride took control however, and he decided to trade in a portion of his shares in United Glass Corp. to independently reacquire Louisville Plate Glass. ``It's not about money,'' Bill said. ``It's about pride now. It's about making it a success again.'' Bill says he is taking a ``survive-and-advance'' strategy with the business until the real estate market picks up again, and he rarely takes a salary from the company to further help company profits.

Louisville Plate Glass has recently had major projects at William Paterson University in Wayne, N.J., and also an outlet mall in New Hampshire, and Bill is optimistic that the real-estate industry will pick up soon and the business will grow. The company is also responsible for work on other notable projects in my hometown of Louisville, including Churchill Downs, the Humana Building, Louisville Slugger Field, Preston Pointe, and the University of Louisville Medical Faculty Building.

Bill is currently flirting with the idea of adding a tempering plant to grow the business. He says there is a ``50-50'' chance that he will invest in the new plant, which would add 20 employees and would bring in-house the production of safety and architectural glass work that is currently outsourced. The new plant would require several million dollars in investment, and Bill says his decision will be based upon whether he can secure State or local funding for the project.

``I take a great deal of pride in this business,'' says Bill, as he is determined to protect the 30 employees currently working at the company's headquarters on West Broadway. For anyone who is concerned with surviving the current down economy in similar fashion, Bill has three suggestions: always keep a strong balance sheet with cash reserves even when times are good, build the best product and provide the best service and the money will follow, and finally, answer every client phone call and customers will take notice.

Mr. President, I would ask all of my Senate colleagues to join me in congratulating Louisville Plate Glass as it celebrates its 100th anniversary. Owner Bill Stone's wisdom and effective business practices will, I hope, provide the company with great opportunities for success moving forward. Louisville Plate Glass is an inspiration to the businesses of Louisville and the people of Kentucky, and it is my hope the company will continue to prosper in the years to come. The Louisville publication, Business First, recently published an article recognizing the company's accomplishments over the past 100 years. I ask unanimous consent that the full article appear in the Record as follows.

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