Floor Statements

Madam President, although lawmakers returned to Washington this week amidst news of a signal achievement in the war on terror, we also return to many critical debates about the situation here at home.

Gas prices are straining budgets and threatening to stall the economic rebound we have all been waiting for. Millions of men and women across the country still can not find a job.

And the two major parties have now presented competing visions of our economic future.

Republicans have shown that we are committed to creating an environment in which the private sector can flourish and create jobs, the jobs Americans need. As part of that effort, we outlined a comprehensive jobs agenda yesterday.

And today we will oppose prematurely ending debate on the small business bill. The other side has refused to allow votes on some of the best ideas Republicans have offered for creating jobs as a part of this legislation, including an important amendment by the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, Senator Snowe. And we intend to oppose their efforts to short circuit this debate until they do.

Republicans are also committed to stopping the administration's inexcusable war on American energy at a time of near-record gas prices. And we are committed to repealing the Democrat health care bill that is already raising costs and destroying jobs.

But hovering above all of this is a growing fear about our Nation's debt.

The administration knows this. That is the reason for tomorrow's debt meeting at the White House.

So this morning I would like to start there, because anyone who has felt even the slightest twinge of pain from the recession has a vested interest in this debate.

Here is why: if we do not act to reduce our debt, this country could very well experience a crisis that makes the economic meltdown of 2008 look like a slow day on Wall Street.

That is not my conclusion.

That is the conclusion of the Democrat cochair of President Obama's own debt commission, a man who has spent the last year looking at this issue from every conceivable angle and who is now telling anybody who will listen that America faces, in his words, ``the most predictable economic crisis in history.''

Few of us saw the last crisis materialize. This one we can see. And a growing number of people now recognize that the upcoming vote on the debt limit provides us with the single best opportunity we have to avoid this crisis before it strikes.

This is the moment to get serious about preventing this approaching crisis and to show the world that we can come together, not for the sake of party but for all Americans.

The world is waiting for America to get its fiscal house in order. The fact that members of both major parties are now showing a willingness to do it is an encouraging sign.

But if we are actually going to do this, more Democrats in Washington have to acknowledge the problem, and the urgency of addressing it now, in a serious way.

I realize that for some people that is a difficult thing to do. We are all grateful to the President's decisiveness over the weekend in going after Osama bin Laden. He is to be congratulated for it. Yet over the past 2 years, we have had many crises. And all too often, it seemed the hardest decision for the President was not whether to solve these crises but whether or not to give a speech about them.

Last year, we waited for weeks to hear the President's position on one of the biggest ecological disasters in history. And throughout this past winter and spring, we waited to hear what he thought about a debt that had spiraled so out of control that America's economic outlook has been downgraded to ``negative'' for the first time ever.

We can not wait for the President on this one.

The consequences of sweeping our problems under the rug again are just too great.

So let me be clear: As even some Democrats have conceded, a failure to do anything meaningful about the debt would be far more harmful to our economic future than a failure to raise the debt limit.

The warnings are simply too loud to ignore.

In early 2008 most of us had no idea we were headed for a financial crisis. Only a few prophetic voices were saying anything about the dangers in the housing market.

Over the past few years, we have seen the painful consequences of that crisis: unemployment lines, lost savings, millions of homes foreclosed.

Despite this largely unforeseen economic catastrophe, the American people have dug in. They have worked harder. They have tried to drag the country back to fiscal health.

It has not been easy, but they have struggled every day to get us back on our feet.

What I am saying this morning is that the danger posed by the debt is not uncertain.

It is coming right at us.

It is, as the cochair of the President's Debt Commission put it, the most predictable crisis in history. And anyone who is more concerned about raising the debt ceiling than in using this debate as an opportunity to prevent this most predictable crisis will answer for it. The American people will make sure of it.

Some may continue to deny that we need to do something about the debt; that the only thing we need to do is raise the debt limit and leave it at that. They want people to think this is all just some political exercise, and that we all just vote according to the President's political affiliation anyway.

Those days are over. Anyone who continues to pretend otherwise is not just deluding themselves. They are deluding the American people.

There isn't a single one of us who has not vowed to do everything in our power to prevent the next crisis from happening. Now we know for certain--absolutely certain--it is on the way--unless we act to prevent it. Raising the debt limit alone will not prevent this crisis; it simply avoids it.

That is why the only way we can claim we have actually done something

meaningful in this debate is to insist on meaningful reforms as the price of our vote. Yes, we have had clean debt ceiling votes before. That was before S&P gave us a negative outlook for the first time ever and told us we risk a downgrade unless we get our fiscal house in order. That was before the world's largest private holder of U.S. Treasurys dumped its share of U.S. debt. That was before a commission that has spent a year studying this issue told us we are headed for ruin unless we act to prevent it. That was before this administration added trillions to the debt and submitted a budget plan this year that called for another $13 trillion in debt over the next 10 years alone.

The crisis is here. The time to act is now.

We hear a lot from administration officials about what a catastrophe it would be if we didn't raise the debt ceiling, and there may very well be some merit to that argument. But what good would it do to raise the limit and wait for the disaster to strike? We might as well tell people to move to the second floor in case of a fire on the first floor.

My constituents do not have the jobs to lose. Kentucky doesn't have the wealth to give away. We have seen the consequences of a recession we did not predict. There is no excuse not to do everything in our power to prevent one we know is coming.

So let me suggest a way forward in this debate.

No. 1, pitting one group of Americans against another isn't going to solve the problem. In fact, it is part of the problem. We all know it is going to take all of us working together to get out of this crisis, so why don't we start acting like it?

No. 2, there are not enough taxes Americans, rich or poor, can pay to sustain the kind of spending Democrats in Washington want. The President may say he wants to tax the rich, but sooner or later he is going to have to tax everyone else to pay for his plans. What is more, we all know raising taxes would stall the rebound we all claim we want. So let's admit we do not have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem.

No. 3, we all know entitlements need to be part of this discussion. It is about time everyone starts acknowledging it. I have seen the ads about lawmakers voting to end Medicare. Let's be honest and admit nobody is talking about taking anybody's Medicare. Frankly, it is pathetic to claim otherwise, and it only makes the problems harder to solve.

No. 4, let's discuss the art of the possible. We all know tax increases would not pass the House because of the damage they do to family budgets and businesses, and a bipartisan majority in the Senate opposes raising taxes on families, on energy production, and small businesses across America. So let's set that aside and find common ground.

Everyone has a stake in this debate. If we face up to it as adults, we will not only prevent a crisis, we will preserve our common way of life, and we will show the world the United States can solve its problems head on. Millions of Americans are looking for work and struggling every day to rebuild their lives. Families and small businesses are being squeezed by gas prices and an administration that refuses to do anything about it.

We will have debates about this in the days ahead, and Republicans will continue to make the case for tapping our own energy resources. We will make the case against new taxes and regulations and a health care law that is stifling jobs and creating new burdens. But all these efforts rise or fall on whether we do something about our debt.

It is time to show we can tackle the big stuff. The stakes are too high to let this debate come and go without acting. Denying the problem will not solve it. Avoiding the problem until the next election will not solve it. Giving speeches about the problem will not solve it. The time has come to act.

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

Mr. President, the Senate will shortly vote on the cloture motion on the Jack McConnell nomination. We have been working in good faith with our Democratic colleagues to confirm consensus judicial nominees in general and to fill judicial emergencies in particular. So it is disappointing that our Democratic friends have chosen to depart from this bipartisan practice and to press the McConnell nomination which would not fill a judicial emergency and is about as far from a consensus nomination as one could imagine.

Mr. McConnell has described his judicial philosophy in this way:

There are wrongs that need to be righted, and that's how I

see the law.

In Mr. McConnell's eyes, the wrongdoers in America are invariably its job creators.

His legal career has been marked by a pervasive and persistent hostility to American job creators. This bias against one part of American society is fundamentally antithetical to the rule of law, and it has led him to take a series of troubling actions that show his unfitness for a lifetime position as a fair and impartial judicial officer.

For example, he has filed what his hometown newspaper described as a ``ludicrous'' lawsuit against businesses. This case ended up costing not just the companies but Rhode Island taxpayers as well. After the State's supreme court unanimously rejected his frivolous legal theory, his clients--the taxpayers--had to pay a quarter of a million dollars in lawyers' fees.

Rather than be contrite about the damage he had done, he lashed out at his State's supreme court, saying it let ``wrongdoers off the hook.'' He has made other intemperate statements as well that underscore his bias, such as when he insisted that one American industry only does ``the right thing'' when it is ``sued and forced to by a jury.''

After such a long record of hostility toward one segment of American society, it is difficult to believe Mr. McConnell can now turn on a dime and ``administer justice without respect to persons,'' as the judicial oath requires. The business community does not think so, and it is easy to see why.

In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has never before opposed a district court nominee in its 100-year history--not once. Yet it is so troubled by Mr. McConnell's clear disdain for the business community that it has taken the extraordinary step of opposing this nomination.

Senator Cornyn pointed out yesterday that there are also serious ethical issues with Mr. McConnell's nomination. He pioneered the practice of ``pay to play'' lawsuits, where he solicited lucrative no- bid, contingency fee contracts from public officials.

He has given statements to the Judiciary Committee that are misleading at best and untrue at worst about his familiarity with a case involving stolen litigation documents. There is the outstanding matter of the stolen litigation documents themselves, over which his law firm and several unnamed ``John Doe'' defendants are being sued.

In light of all the problems with the McConnell nomination, I have listened with interest to the admonishments by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and other Democratic colleagues against opposing cloture on his nomination. I know my record of supporting up-and-down votes for controversial judicial nominees during the administration of President Clinton, and I am equally aware of the determined efforts by my Democratic colleagues ``to change the ground rules'' in the Senate confirmation process once there was a Republican President.

My Democratic colleagues ultimately succeeded in their efforts by repeatedly filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees. I wish our friends had not succeeded and not set up that precedent. But they did. And the precedent is the precedent, and their buyer's remorse now that there is again a Democrat in the Oval Office will not change it.

Over the years, there have been bipartisan concerns with judicial nominees, and cloture has been needed to end debate. Abe Fortas is a famous case. He was opposed by Senators from both sides of the aisle because of ethical issues, and his nomination did not even have majority support, let alone the votes needed to invoke cloture.

But the partisan filibuster is a more recent development, and our Democratic colleagues have been the proud pioneers in this area. In 1986, they mounted the first partisan filibuster against a judicial nominee. That nominee, by the way, was a district court nominee, Sidney Fitzwater.

Also in 1986, they mounted the first partisan filibuster against a nominee to be Chief Justice. That was Chief Justice Rehnquist's nomination.

In 1999, they mounted the first successful partisan filibuster of a judicial nominee. That too involved a district court nominee, Brian Stewart. Both the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the senior Senator from Rhode Island voted to filibuster Mr. Stewart. I, and all Republicans, voted actually against filibustering him.

Our friends' successful filibuster of this nominee is now inconvenient to their narrative about filibuster norms and propriety. They claim that filibuster does not count. I guess they are saying they only filibustered him to leverage floor votes on other judicial nominees, and once they got what they wanted, he was confirmed. I gather this is the ``coercion exception'' to the body of filibuster precedent they have created.

In 2003, our friends mounted the first successful filibuster of a circuit court nomination. That would be Miguel Estrada's nomination. He was filibustered seven times, in fact. Our Democratic colleagues added to this record by filibustering nine other circuit court nominees, a total of 21 times. That is a record, too. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the senior Senator from Rhode Island participated in all of those filibusters as well.

In 2006, led by President Obama himself, our Democratic colleagues mounted the first partisan filibuster of a nominee to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. That would be the Justice Alito nomination. Our Democratic friends from Vermont and Rhode Island joined in that filibuster, too.

I agree that filibusters of judicial nominees should be used sparingly. Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle have filibustered judicial nominees whenever it suited their purposes to do so, whether it was to defeat nominees such as Miguel Estrada or to leverage other nominees as with the Stewart nomination. Given their persistent enthusiasm for the judicial filibuster, I do not view our Democratic friends as the arbiters of filibuster propriety.

In this case, I believe the McConnell nomination is an extraordinary one. He should not be confirmed to a lifetime position on the bench. I will oppose cloture, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I rise today to pay tribute and bid a fond farewell to a remarkable philanthropist, a proud Louisvillian, a great-grandmother of 29, and a dear friend. Sadly, Sara Shallenberger Brown--known by her friends as ``Sally''--passed away this April 30 in Louisville, just after celebrating her 100th birthday on April 14.

Sally was more than just a leading citizen of Louisville and of Kentucky--she was a driving force of nature. Through her energy, spirit, and great generosity, she made our city and our Commonwealth better places to live.

Sally led a life that would not seem out of place in an epic movie or novel. Born in Valdez, AK, in 1911, her father was a brigadier general who fought in France during World War I and served with generals Pershing and Patton. In 1931, Sally visited a friend from college in Louisville, and here she met her future husband, W.L. Lyons Brown. When Lyons soon after wrote Sally's parents to tell them he was naming a race horse ``Sally Shall,'' they knew it had been love at first sight.

The couple made their home in Louisville, where he was the president and chairman of Brown-Forman Corp., a Louisville-based company for over 140 years and one of the largest American-owned spirits and wine companies. Sally became a generous benefactor to Louisville institutions such as the Speed Museum, Locust Grove, the Actors Theatre of Louisville and Waterfront Park.

She was instrumental in preserving Locust Grove, the final home of Louisville founder George Rogers Clark. Where the home had once been abandoned and in ill repair, today it is a museum and National Historic Landmark.

Sally cared deeply and throughout her long life for conservation and preservation. She founded a conservation program to preserve the natural beauty of the Kentucky River. She advocated for the preservation of federal national wildlife refuges, and was present at the bill signing by President Jimmy Carter that saw the culmination of her efforts. She was a delegate to U.N. conferences, and traveled internationally to promote wildlife conservation.

But most of all, Sally will be remembered for her enjoyment of life. She loved to be outdoors, working on her farm. Even in her later years you could often see her riding around on top of her tractor. She was an artist, designer, and breeder of cattle, thoroughbreds and Cavalier King Charles spaniels.

Sally inspired her family, friends and all who knew her as she forged ahead with her many philanthropic and intellectual interests, all while setting the example as the matriarch of the Brown family since her husband's passing in 1973. Together they had four children, 12 grandchildren, and 29 great-grandchildren, and I want to express my condolences to them and other family members at this great woman's passing.

Mr. President, the Louisville Courier-Journal recently published an editorial celebrating the life of Sally Brown. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the extraordinary accomplishments of two of the most dedicated and hard-working citizens of the Commonwealth, David and Irene Morris of Hager Hill, KY. Working as a team of husband and wife, David and Irene have worked tirelessly over the years to strengthen and improve the manufacturing industry in Johnson County and throughout the State through their work at the Atlantic India Rubber Company.

Although Irene and David's native roots are in Michigan, the couple moved to Kentucky when the Atlantic India Rubber Company, a 92-year-old company, moved its operations here from Illinois and Ohio in 2003. David and Irene were hired to oversee the day-to-day operations of the facility. Their son and one other employee joined them on their move, and the rest of their employees were hired locally.

David and Irene's decision to take on their responsibilities as manager and executive came at a time when the State's manufacturing job rate was on a steady decline. In recent years, Kentucky has lost too many of its manufacturing jobs, with some especially hard-hit counties losing as many as one-third of their manufacturing employers. But thanks to David and Irene, this was not to be in Johnson County. The couple lived in their warehouse while trying to establish the business, and had to have machines shipped from other locations since the local business community was geared more towards the coal industry than manufacturing, but they succeeded. As only one of nine manufacturing employers in the county, they have raised the local area's manufacturing employment rate, and have helped keep jobs from drifting overseas.

Last spring, after the couple had poured nearly 10 years of their lives into building the company, then-owner Jim Green announced that he would be retiring. With none of the interested buyers having ties to Johnson County, David and Irene knew what they had to do. Later that fall the couple announced they were the new owners of the Atlantic India Rubber Company.

Because of their purchase, the rubber parts used on Harley Davidson motorcycles, Arctic Cat snowmobiles, and Boeing jets would still be made in the heart of the Commonwealth, and eight hardworking people would still have their jobs. With combined help from the Southeast Kentucky Economic Development Corporation and the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development, David and Irene secured a $1.3- million loan to buy the company and the location.

Irene once said that at first she was hesitant to take on her responsibilities at Atlantic India Rubber Company for fear of failure. Well, as she discovered, along with her employees and the residents of Johnson County, failure was simply not in the cards for the Morrises. It is people like them, who have extraordinary aspirations and faith in themselves and in Kentucky, that continue to make the Commonwealth a thriving and positive place to work and live.

Mr. President, the Lexington Herald-Leader recently published an article highlighting the impressive careers of David and Irene, and I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I think most Americans are proud that the man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and then reveled in the horror of that day is dead.

Today, we recognize the dedicated work of the many intelligence professionals, law enforcement officials, and the many men and women in our armed services who brought us to this day.

The pursuit of Osama bin Laden spanned more than a decade. Following the attacks of September 11, the Senate voted 98 to 0 to authorize the use of force against al-Qaida--an authorization that is still in force today.

At the time, President Bush enjoyed the support of a nation united behind the decision to pursue al-Qaida and to drive the Taliban from power.

We should be equally united today in honoring those brave Americans who are committed to preventing further attacks upon our homeland.

While bin Laden and his followers were building their terror networks, we were patiently and diligently building our intelligence capabilities.

Following the successful raid on Sunday, those who remain committed to al-Qaida and associated terrorist groups should know that one day they too will share bin Laden's fate.

Some might think the success of this raid means the end of the war on terror. But as the President has said, the death of Osama bin Laden does not mean the death of al-Qaida. Our intelligence community and armed services must keep up the pressure on al-Qaida and associated terror networks.

Osama bin Laden launched this war on the false assumption that America didn't have the stomach for the fight. On Sunday night, he learned how wrong he was.

This week, America showed the world we meant it when we said we would not rest until justice was done to those who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

A generation of patriots has pursued al-Qaida for more than a decade, driven by the idea that every day is September 12, 2001. That spirit must persist.

Once again, I commend the President on his decision to go through with this mission. Above all, I thank the remarkable group of men who carried it out.

Not to be forgotten are the thousands of uniformed Americans in Afghanistan, Iraq, and across the globe, defending America's interests as we consider this resolution today.

The resolution reaffirms the Senate's commitment to eliminating safe havens for terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we are reminded of the difficult work that remains. But today, those who remember the horror of 9/11 take a certain satisfaction knowing that the last thing Osama bin Laden saw in this world was a small team of Americans who shot him dead. The brave team who killed bin Laden made their Nation proud, and they deserve the Senate's recognition and its praise.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, Americans and all who long for justice woke to the good news: nearly 10 years after the United States set out to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, justice has been done. The man who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and who reveled in the horror of that day is dead. And those who follow his twisted vision are again on notice: America is in pursuit.

This was a long time coming. For two decades, Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida network he created, sustained, and led has been at war with the United States.

The path of terror extended from the first World Trade Center bombing to the bombing of the Khobar Towers and the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, to the bombing of the USS Cole, to the horrors of 9/11, and through two long and difficult wars that followed. 9/11 may have been the day that this pattern of violence became suddenly and undeniably clear. But bin Laden's destructive path was already long by then, and for the past 10 years, America has been determined to bring this monster to justice.

From the beginning of this fight, the mission has been clear: to deny al-Qaida and any of its affiliates around the world a sanctuary from which they could plan, prepare, or launch another attack on U.S. soil. And the effort to prevent that long-feared attack has been an undeniable success under two administrations in the ongoing war on terror.

Yet despite this success, and our early success in Afghanistan, al- Qaida's senior leadership was able to find a safe-haven in Afghanistan. A few short years after 9/11 al-Qaida had regained enough strength to once again pose a serious threat to the United States. Meanwhile, the Taliban had reestablished its headquarters in Pakistan and had gained enough strength to return to Afghanistan and to risk the success of our mission there.

And as the years went by, Osama bin Laden's ability to elude capture had become a greater source of frustration to us, and a source of propaganda to his followers.

Over the years, Americans had become all too familiar with bin Laden's dark pronouncements, from his perverse declaration 3 years before 9/11 that it was the obligation of every Muslim ``to kill and fight Americans and their allies, whether civilian or military in any country'' . . . to his declaration after 9/11 that he had calculated the number of innocents he could kill that morning, and that he was the most optimistic planner of them all.

Last night, those proud pronouncements ended at the barrel of a gun. The last thing Osama bin Laden saw on this earth was the small team of Americans who shot him.

So Americans can be proud of the efforts of our military and intelligence communities, and the focused efforts of two administrations in fighting al-Qaida, and now, in capturing, its self- appointed leader.

This is indeed a signal achievement, a huge victory in the war against terrorism, and a day of great pride for our country. The President made the right call, and we thank him for it.

We can never bring back those who died on 9/11 or those who have given their lives in this long and difficult war, but all Americans can say with renewed confidence today that we have kept our pledge, and that this is a war we will win.

Some will recall that Osama bin Laden launched this war many years ago on the false assumption that America didn't have the stomach for the fight. While it may have taken longer than we hoped, last night he and his followers learned just how wrong he was. We take great satisfaction in knowing that Osama bin Laden will no longer be able to carry out his evil plans, that he has made his last video, and that whenever someone suggests the United States has grown weary, complacent in this war, we have shown how determined we are to fight it to the end.

History is full of fallen despots and madmen who underestimated the resolve of the United States. Last night, we added one more to their ranks. But we don't rest, because we know al-Qaida's determination to attack the United States didn't end on September

11, 2001, and it didn't end last night. We continue to fight, knowing that al-Qaida remains committed to attacking our homeland and our allies. We were reminded of this last week when police in Germany arrested three men associated with al-Qaida who were planning an attack there.

Since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, we have matched the terrorist threat with the valor of our armed services and counterterrorism professionals. The men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency's Counterterrorism Center have unselfishly devoted themselves to preventing attacks against us and in hunting down bin Laden. Last night, their determined efforts met with success, and we are deeply grateful for their efforts.

As for the broader war, the death of bin Laden may create the opportunity to renew our efforts with Pakistan to bring fresh pressure on al-Qaida's senior leadership. President Obama noted in his remarks of last night that it is essential for Pakistan to join us in this fight. Today is the day to redouble our efforts in pursuit of al-Qaida.

In the coming weeks and months, these same counterterrorism professionals will focus on determining what bin Laden's death means for the threat posed by al-Qaida affiliates in Somalia, Yemen, North Africa, and for the remainder of al-Qaida's senior leadership. But today the world knows once again that wherever al-Qaida lurks--wherever they lurk--we will find them. It may not be days from now; it may not be months. But those who plot harm to innocent Americans and our allies will be captured or killed. For them too justice will be done.

Anyone who lived through the horror of 9/11 remembers exactly where they were on that terrible September day. Now they will remember where they were when they first heard the news that the man behind it had been killed by brave American forces inside Pakistan. We will remember where we were when, after years of effort, we finally got our man. America didn't seek this fight; it came to us. But ever since 9/11, we have been determined to fight al-Qaida to the end. We knew from the start it would require patience and great sacrifice, and that effort has paid off. Thanks to the skill and perseverance of many brave men and women, we have done what we said. America has not wavered, it has not lost sight of the mission, and we will prevail.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Lawrence Elswick for his service to the United States. Mr. Elswick serves as a prime example of a man who truly puts others before himself.

Having spent the majority of his life in the small town of Big Creek, KY, Mr. Elswick has touched the lives of several Kentuckians. Whether he is fixing the plumbing in a neighbor's bathroom or giving away free vegetables from his garden, Lawrence never hesitates when offering a helping hand.

Although Lawrence came from a humble background, he allowed his upbringing to inspire him rather than hold him back. Having grown up as the oldest in a family with 8 children, Lawrence was molded into the leader that he still is today. Furthermore, Lawrence knows what it means to be truly dedicated. He has dedicated his life to serving his church, the people of the Commonwealth, and his country.

Because Lawrence has always selflessly given to others, it came as no surprise when he joined the Army during World War II and willingly risked his life to defend our country. He was among the heroes who bravely fought on Normandy Beach in 1944. At one point in time, Lawrence went missing in action and remained behind enemy lines for a week. It is because of his immense courage and great service to this Nation that I stand here today honoring his achievements. Lawrence has been awarded numerous medals because of his service in the U.S. Army. His collection of medals include the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star, the Combat Infantry Badge, the Good Conduct Medal, the European Theater of Operations Ribbon with four major stars, the Honorable Service Lapel Button, and the Presidential Citation Ribbon. Several of these medals are among the greatest honors that are bestowed upon our men and women in the service.

It is because of Lawrence's strong character, his dedication to his family and friends, and his giving spirit that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is so proud to call him one of our own.

The Appalachian News Express recently published an article commemorating Mr. Lawrence Elswick's service to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and

to the Nation, and I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a Kentuckian who has led a remarkable and inspirational life, Ms. Ethel Richardson Martin. In 1911 in Kenton County, KY, Ethel Martin was born--meaning that this March, she celebrated her 100th birthday. And she has much to be proud of, looking back at a century of a life well lived.

Ms. Martin came from a large family; her parents Eugene and Frances had 11 children. Ethel and her sisters liked to sing, and I am told they once sang at Renfro Valley, site of many great Kentucky music performances. Ms. Martin graduated from Western Kentucky State Teachers College--now Western Kentucky University--and served as a missionary in Georgia, mostly in the area of Macon. In 1943, with America at war with the Axis Powers, she enlisted in the Women's Army Corps, the branch of our country's Armed Forces that GEN Douglas MacArthur once called ``my best soldiers.''

Ms. Martin began her WAC training in Des Moines, IA. She served her country with distinction and rose to the rank of captain. When the war ended, she participated in the prosecution of the Germany's war criminals. She was one of the first Americans to see the inside of Adolf Hitler's mountain retreat called the Eagle's Nest, and she served as an adjunct to an attorney who worked on the Nuremburg Trials.

In 1947, Ms. Martin was discharged from Army service. She returned to America, and she earned her master's degree and her doctorate from the University of Cincinnati. She also met and married the love of her life, Ansel C. Martin. Ansel was a music teacher, and he has been missed by all who knew him since his passing in 1991.

Ethel found a career in education, and she and Ansel lived in North Carolina for a time. She was a leader in the efforts of her church, the First United Methodist Church located in Hendersonville, NC, to sponsor Cambodian refugees to the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. In 2001, she returned to her native Kentucky. We are lucky to have her back in the Bluegrass State and happy to help celebrate her 100th birthday. Her long life of service to her country and her community are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. President, yesterday, President Obama outlined what he is describing as a ``responsible'' approach to our Nation's fiscal problems. And my initial response to that characterization is that, with all due respect,

the American people are not inclined to take advice on fiscal responsibility from an administration whose unprecedented borrowing and spending has done so much to create the mess we are in.

After 2 years of adding trillions to the debt and ignoring our Nation's looming fiscal nightmare, the President may be right in thinking that the politically expedient thing to do is point the finger at others. But the truly responsible thing would be to admit that his own 2-year experiment in big government has been a disaster for the economy and itself a major driver of our debt; and that his inaction on the latter is the primary reason others have been forced to step forward and offer meaningful solutions of their own.

That is what most people already believe anyway. So the President's attempt to stake out the high ground in this debate was, I suspect, hard for many Americans to swallow.

Despite the President's imaginative account of how we arrived at the situation we are in, the American people are well past the point of believing that Washington will be able to make good on all its promises if only we let the President and Democrats in Congress raise taxes.

Americans know that we face a fiscal crisis not because we tax too little but because we spend too much. They do not support the reckless Washington spending that has left us with record deficits and debt, and they will not support raising taxes to preserve an unsustainable status quo. Besides, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have already rejected the kind of tax hike on small business that President Obama endorsed again yesterday. So it was counterproductive of him to revive it.

As for entitlements, the President rightly acknowledged that before we know it, the government will spend every dime it takes in just to cover the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the interest on our debt. What he did not say is that the health care bill he signed last year takes more than half a trillion dollars out of Medicare to pay for an entirely new entitlement that could be just as unsustainable as Medicare itself; and which forces nearly 20 million more Americans into a Medicaid Program which, as currently arranged, is bankrupting our States.

So the President can claim to be a great defender of the social safety net. He may claim to stand for a nobler vision of America than those who disagree with him. But the facts speak for themselves. And when it comes to preserving the social safety net, the President's proposals simply do not address the things that have caused our most cherished entitlement programs to be unsustainable in the first place.

Instead, the President would simply tinker around the edges and leave the hard work for others, passing the buck to future Presidents. And that just won't cut it anymore.

Americans are paying attention. They know the fiscal problems we face will not be solved by continuing the job-destroying policies that got us here. What is more, the centerpiece of the President's proposal, tax hike on top earners, may sound appealing to those whose primary goal in this debate is to protect big government. But looking at the most recent data, the Wall Street Journal points out this morning that even if we were to lay claim to every taxable dollar of every single American who earns more than $100,000 a year, we still wouldn't raise enough to cover the $1.6 trillion deficit the President's budget gives us this year.

The best way to bring down the debt and to create the climate that will lead to good private-sector jobs and prosperity is not to repeat the policies of the past but to change them. And that means cutting Washington spending, not squeezing family budgets even more.

Throughout the day today, Senators will have an opportunity to debate a down payment on those cuts for the rest of the current fiscal year. So I invite them to come to the floor to discuss that proposal. After that, we will move onto an even more far-reaching debate not about billions but about trillions. That is the debate that will show Americans exactly where their elected representatives stand on facing up to the fiscal challenges we face. Republicans look forward to that debate.

That brings me to a final point.

Yesterday, the President said that the debate we have been having in Washington about the size and scope of government is not about numbers on a page. It is about the kind of country we believe in. But he left out an important point. And that is, that there are a great many people in Washington and beyond who agree with him, but who also believe in their core that the approach he has taken over the past 2 years represents the greatest single threat to the very future he envisions. America will not continue to be the great Nation it is unless we are able to keep our promises to the current and future generations, and stop spending money we do not have. But the greatest obstacle to that future is not the everyday American who wants Washington to balance its checkbook, or those who look at where the President's policies have gotten us and map out a different path to the future than he would. The greatest obstacle we face is the crushing burden of our debt, as the President now admits.

Unfortunately, the plan he outlined yesterday does not seriously address it. Americans know the stakes in this debate. They know the reason we are in this situation. It is time the President and Democrats in Congress acknowledge it as well. The debate has shifted. And while the President does not seem to see that yet, we will not solve our problems until he stops campaigning and joins us in a serious, bipartisan effort to change not only his tone but his direction. That is how we will ensure that the future that he--and we--envision and want actually comes about. That is the only chance we have.

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

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

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

Madam President, all across the country this morning, Americans are struggling--and they are not getting much in the way of help or hope from Washington. Those who are unemployed or eager to hire are frustrated by the mountain of burdensome new rules and regulations Democrats have imposed on them in the past 2 years and by the uncertainty that comes with every proposal to create another one. They are shocked that a White House which does not even try to balance its checkbook would repeatedly propose to raise taxes. And more and more, they are worried about the consequences of our debt and the President's reluctance to do anything about it.

But even more upsetting to many Americans is the repeated attempts of the White House to seem as if it is doing something about these things when it is not. That is just what the President has sought to do in talking about the need to reform entitlements and lower the debt, but refusing to lift a finger to do either. And that is just what I fear he will do again this afternoon in outlining his vision for tackling these problems without so much as presenting a single new idea or anything approaching a workable plan to get us there.

The truth is, the President is only entering this debate at all because he can no longer ignore the growing bipartisan calls for action. If he were serious, he would be talking about a detailed roadmap for action, not just grabbing headlines by announcing another speech.

Of course, we can hope that the President presents more than just his vision for the future this afternoon. But those who have hoped for that from this President have been disappointed many times before. What we are likely to get instead is a broad-brush notion of what the President wants to see--a vision that includes calls for strengthening entitlement programs that few people would disagree with but which will never come about absent Presidential leadership; a partisan call for tax hikes on struggling job creators, and, I fear, a call for tax hikes on energy producers when gas prices are already creating heavy burdens for so many.

No doubt we will also get a fair share of finger-pointing and an attempt to cast Republicans in the worst possible light for actually laying out a serious plan to address the crises we face while others merely talk about their vision. But we can still hope that the President leaves the scapegoating aside for a change and finally admits the obvious: that we can only solve these fiscal crises if we do so together.

So either the President agrees today that Republicans have a point when it comes to the seriousness of our fiscal problems and admits that the old approach of pretending they do not exist will not work anymore or those problems will become harder and harder to solve. Either he pretends that old programs, unlike everything else in life, do not need to adapt to survive or he joins us in acknowledging those programs will no longer be there for the people who are counting on them if we do not take serious action now.

We need to keep our promises to seniors and to a rising generation of Americans--and we will--but we can no longer afford to make promises to younger workers that we all know we cannot afford to keep.

Look: if big government created jobs and opportunity, then we would be in the middle of a boom right now. That experiment has failed. And that is why the national conversation has shifted from how much Democrats want to expand the scope of government to how much both parties should rein it in.

The fiscal crisis we face will not be solved by ``freezing'' unsustainable government spending or by raising taxes on the very small businesses we are counting on to create jobs. And the programs we cherish as Americans will not be preserved for the next generation through speeches alone. Americans do not want to hear the President's vision today--he has had 2 years to lay that out. They want to hear his plan.

Americans do not want to hear the President criticize or distort the serious efforts of those in our party who want to solve our problems head on. They want to hear a detailed counterproposal of his own. And they do not want to hear that the price of gas at the pump is going to get even higher, or that their opportunities to find or create jobs will shrink. Now is not a time for mere speeches or political attacks. It is a time for action.

That is what Americans want from this President. That is what they are failing to get. I hope that changes today.

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

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