Floor Statements

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the Commonwealth's finest, the late Mr. Reid S. Jones. A native of Pulaski County, KY, Reid was a prime example of a man who was a true American hero and who valued his faith, his family, and his community.

A rich tradition of business success and pride in hard work and achievement always seemed prevalent throughout the history of Reid's family, so it came as no surprise when Reid began to exhibit early signs of entrepreneurial instincts. As a young boy, members of his hometown witnessed Reid leading a small goat down a road from the country store operated by his parents to a local family farm as he tried to make a sale. It was this ambition and drive that made Reid S. Jones a leader, a war hero, and a guiding force for all who knew him.

Reid, who passed away on April 15, 2005, joined the U.S. Army in 1944 at a crucial point during World War II. Eighteen years old, Reid felt a strong desire to serve and protect his country as well as to defend the rights and freedoms of others. He courageously fought in the Battle of the Bulge, one of the deadliest battle for American forces of the war. Reid's leadership got him promoted to the rank of staff sergeant, and he remained in Germany for a short time after the war to help begin the reconstruction process.

After returning home from the war to his new bride Elva Sears, Reid received a bachelor's degree from Union College in Barbourville, KY. He decided to further his dedication for educational excellence and became a history teacher, principal, and basketball coach for the Pulaski County and Somerset City school systems. His firm yet compassionate character made Reid well-respected by his peers and fondly remembered by his former students. Later in the 1960s he became a district sales manager for the Fram Corporation, an automotive product brand best known for their oil filters. His eye for detail and strong ambition to get things done earned him frequent recognition for exceeding sales quotas and helped him play an instrumental role in placing Fram products in Wal-Marts across the southeastern United States.

Reid's ``jack of all trades'' ability eventually led him to open his own automotive businesses, as well as become a 32nd-degree Mason, a member of the Oleika Shriners Temple, and the board of directors of the First United Methodist Church.

In addition to serving his community through business and educational work, Reid deeply cherished the relationships he had with his friends and family. He has often been remembered through the strong friendships he formed with members of the Somerset community, as he met daily with friends at his automotive businesses for coffee and southern storytelling. His dedication to public service and education, led his wife, along with his daughter, Dr. Sonya Jones, to establish The Jones Educational Foundation, to provide scholarships and assistance for people of south-central Kentucky and beyond who seek greater education and who show effort and ability.

There is no doubt that because of Reid's character, his dedication to family and friends, and his contributions to higher education and the business community, that his town, the Commonwealth, and the country have been forever changed for the better.

The Commonwealth Journal recently published an article about Mr. Reid S. Jones and a contribution that his daughter made to the Jones Educational Foundation on behalf of his dear friend, the late James Eastham. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the impressive accomplishments of a remarkable men's basketball team in the Commonwealth, the Bellarmine University Knights.

On March 26, the Knights made school history by winning the 2011 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II basketball championship. By defeating the Brigham Young University-Hawaii Seasiders 71 to 68, Bellarmine brought home its first national championship title in any sport. Senior guard Justin Benedetti described the atmosphere in the MassMutual Center in Springfield, MA, where the championship game was held to be like a home game for the Knights, as many fans traveled to fill the crowd of nearly 3,000.

The morning following their championship win, hundreds of fans, alumni, and students cheered as the team returned to campus and filed off the bus holding high their national trophy. I applaud not only the team's athletic achievement, but also the teamwork and sportsmanship on display as they represented my hometown, Louisville, and our Commonwealth in front of the country's basketball fans.

A state that honors basketball will honor the 2011 Bellarmine Knights team as among the best for seasons to come. Fans will remember a team of unselfish players whose only goal was to win. And they will remember head coach Scott Davenport, who taught his players to play basketball the way it was meant to be played.

Coach Davenport built this team around talented local players--the entire roster hails from Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio. A Louisville native, he led his Knights to a 33-2 overall record this year on their way to the Division II championship. He can now add this collegiate championship to the one he earned coaching the Ballard High School Bruins of Louisville, KY, to the State championship in 1988. It is no wonder he was recently named the 2011 Schelde North America/Division II Bulletin Coach of the Year. I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to Scott Davenport upon receiving this distinguished honor.

Family members, friends, and the Louisville community are justifiably proud of this team's achievement and the recognition they have earned. This season was a special one for Bellarmine University that we will remember for a long time to come.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Bellarmine University Knights men's basketball team upon earning their first national title. I wish them continued success both on and off the court.

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

Mr. President, today, as the American naval aviators in the Mediterranean wait offshore to fly combat missions against the Libyan Army, as marines wait for the call to go ashore to rescue a downed pilot, or as Air Force pilots fly combat air patrol, we are confident that all military orders will be met with the same professionalism and skill we have come to expect of our All-Volunteer Force. The valor and loyalty of the men and women of our Nation's Armed Forces have never been in question. Yet, despite that certainty, many Americans view our military intervention in Libya with anxiety and uncertainty. They are wondering why U.S. forces are once again engaged in combat action against an Arab regime in the Middle East. They are wondering when this operation will end and when their loved ones will return. And they are asking another reasonable question: What is the mission?

If the American people are uncertain as to our military objectives in Libya, it is with good cause. The President has failed to explain up to this point what follows the evident establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya as it was originally described. Further, the President has articulated a wider political objective of regime change in Libya that is not the stated objective of our military intervention, nor is it the mandate of the U.N. resolution the President has used as a justification for our military efforts there.

Now that the objective of establishing a no-fly zone has been reached and our NATO allies are ready to assume the command and execution of this mission, it is fair to ask, what is the role of our military and military alliance in providing support to an opposition we are only now beginning to understand?

These concerns and questions are equally relevant here in the Senate and in the Congress since it is the responsibility of Congress to declare war, if it is war, and, of course, to fund our military operations.

The President stated:

There is no decision I face as your commander in chief that

I consider as carefully as the decision to ask our men and

women to use military force. Particularly at a time when our

military is fighting in Afghanistan and winding down our

activities in Iraq, that decision is only made more

difficult.

Yet this latest decision was taken without adequate consultation with Congress or sufficient explanation to the American people.

Since returning from South America, the President has begun to talk in greater detail about our involvement in Libya. For the second time, he has discussed our operations in and around Libya with the congressional leadership. Over the weekend, he devoted his entire address to the topic, and he will speak to the American people tonight about our operations in Libya. All of this is welcome and, in my view, overdue.

Before addressing what answers I hope to hear from the President this evening, let me address the notifications to Congress that the President made.

Prior to the initiation of combat activities in Libya, the congressional leadership received two forms of notification of the President's decision to order Americans into harm's way. Prior to departing for his overseas trip, the President notified the congressional leadership of his plans to send American forces into combat action in a limited, discrete role to destroy the integrated air defenses of the Libyan Government and to enable our allies to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. The second notification was a written communication as part of his responsibilities under the War Powers Resolution.

Throughout his communications with the congressional leadership, the President has emphasized that the U.S. military would not undertake ground combat against the Libyan Army and that the American combat role would be limited in time, scope, and would be used simply as a means ``to set the conditions for our European allies and

Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.''

The President and his military advisers and commanders have explained that the overwhelming American capabilities to destroy enemy air defenses, target command-and-control structures, jam communications signals, and monitor the battlefield would all be employed to allow NATO and the coalition to assume responsibility for the no-fly zone. It was the limited nature of our combat role that encouraged me that the President was acting within his article II authorities as Commander in Chief. And the actions by NATO over the past few days to take over command and responsibility for the no-fly zone are consistent with the President's commitment that ``limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by our coalition partners.''

Here I am reminded of the important contribution of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in advising the President since he came to office. The President is fortunate to be able to call upon the wisdom of this seasoned national security expert in considering our operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. It was Secretary Gates who reminded the American people of the risks inherent in military intervention. I know his views will be critical as we transfer further responsibilities to the coalition, and I hope the administration pays close attention to what he says.

This week, NATO will consider the last part of the mission that must be transferred. What the United Nations resolution refers to as protection of civilian personnel has included attacks on Libyan ground forces and strike missions conducted by American warplanes. If U.S. military forces were to have responsibility for close air support or execute additional strike missions in support of opposition forces, then that, of course, would exceed the President's definition of a limited, supporting role. Such a mission could last indefinitely and would trigger congressional consideration of our larger role in the war.

My expectation is that the President will explain this transfer of responsibility in his speech tonight and that NATO will resolve this issue this week, ending our efforts there as the primary force.

As the commander of U.S. African Command, GEN Carter Ham has said:

Our mandate--again, our mission--is to protect civilians

from attack by the regime ground forces. Our mission is not

to support any opposition forces.

General Ham has also said:

We do not operate in direct support of the opposition

forces.

So as President Obama addresses the Nation this evening, like many Americans, I will be listening for answers to the following questions: When will the U.S. combat role in the operation end? Will America's commitment end in days, not weeks, as the President promised? What will be the duration of the noncombat operation, and what will be the cost? What national security interests of the United States justify the risk of American life? What is the role of our country in Libya's ongoing civil war?

The President made clear that our combat forces' role in Libya will be limited in scope and duration. Tonight, I hope he will reiterate that pledge or ask Congress before extending the duration or scope of our mission there. And, as always, our thoughts are with the brave young Americans in places such as Helmand Province and Baghdad, those in Japan helping the Japanese people recover from the natural disaster there, and with those who are once again off the shores of Tripoli.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I congratulate our colleague from Arkansas on his first speech and remark at how fortunate the people of Arkansas are to have him here representing them. I was particularly interested in the history lesson he taught us about various individuals who served the State of Arkansas both in the seat he now holds and other positions of responsibility. Again, on behalf of all Senators, I congratulate the junior Senator from Arkansas for his initial speech.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it was a great honor to have the Reverend Thad Austin, of the First United Methodist Church in Murfreesboro, TN, provide the opening prayer this morning. I thank him for his wise words. Remembering the St. Patrick in St. Patrick's Day was a wonderful way to begin the session.

I first met the Reverend Austin at his alma mater, Asbury University in Wilmore, KY, when I visited there in 2007. Asbury University's mission is to engage the world and serve the Word through public service. Our guest Chaplain today has pursued that mission with great success.

Maybe it is a family calling. The Reverend Austin's grandfather, Dr. Edward U. Austin, was an admiral in the U.S. Navy who volunteered overseas as a medical missionary. His father, Stephen B. Austin, is a doctor who cares for our Nation's veterans.

They taught Thad that it was important to serve others--that in a nation that so generously provides what many in other parts of the world do not enjoy, it is important to give back.

The Reverend Austin has taken that advice very much to heart. He is still a young man, but he has accomplished a great deal. And he is not one to look back with pride on where he has been, but rather, look forward to all that he has left to do.

The Reverend Austin earned his degrees from Asbury University and the Asbury Theological Seminary, and he has also studied at Oxford University and the Wesley Theological Seminary here in the Nation's Capital. He is the pastor of congregational care at the First United Methodist Church, as well as a commissioned Elder there.

The Reverend Austin has preached in England, South Korea, and Mexico as well as in Kentucky, Tennessee, and several other States, and provided spiritual guidance and volunteer work in Mexico, Guatemala, Kentucky, and Tennessee. And while he has clearly gone on to do bigger and bolder things, let me also note that in 2009 he served as an intern in my office.

ADM Edward Austin, whose grandson has just addressed the Senate Chamber, is buried at Arlington. Our own Senate Chaplain Barry Black, also a Navy admiral, delivered his interment service. And I know Chaplain Black is just as pleased to have the Reverend Austin here with us today as I am.

Once again let me say it was a true honor to listen to the Reverend Austin's words this morning. I want to thank him for taking time from his important work to be here. And I thank him for his lifetime of service to his community and our Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, next week does indeed mark the 1-year anniversary since the Democratic health care bill was signed into law. We all recall the debate quite well. It was the most partisan of debates. The only bipartisan moment was in the House when there was bipartisan opposition to the new health care bill. In the Senate, it was a strictly partisan vote--60 Democrats voted for it, 40 Republicans voted against it. If a single Democrat--even one--had changed their vote on that Christmas Eve, we would not be looking at the 1-year anniversary of the Democratic health care bill. This morning, I would like to look back on what we learned during that year.

Shortly before the final vote, then-Speaker Pelosi famously said that the Democrats had to pass the bill so they could find out what was in it--away, as she put it, from the ``fog of controversy.'' Now that the fog has lifted, the question arises, What do we know now that we did not know then?

We now know that those who promised us that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it'' were dead wrong. The Obama administration has already admitted that at least 7 million seniors will now lose their Medicare Advantage plans. And one of the administration's own top health care analysts recently admitted that this oft-repeated pledge was ``not true in all cases.''

We all knew the bill created strong incentives for businesses to drop or change employees' health care plans, the ones they get through their jobs. Now that the bill is passed, the White House admits it too. One recent study suggests that as many as 35 million American workers could see their employer-based health insurance plans dropped in this way. The administration's promises on this point, which were echoed by Capitol Hill Democrats, such as Speaker Pelosi, turned out to be hollow. Today, even the administration itself predicts more than half of all American workers will see their current employer-sponsored health care plans change within a couple of years' time.

Shortly after the health care bill became law, the Department of Labor acknowledged all of that. Small businesses would be most affected, it said, with as many as 80 percent expected to have to change their coverage to comply with the new law. For all remaining businesses, the administration now estimates that somewhere between 39 and 69 percent will be forced to change their plans to comply with costly and burdensome new dictates from health care bureaucrats in Washington.

What happened to the reassuring predictions that everybody's plans would stay the same? It turned out to be nonsense--utter nonsense.

Americans have every reason to be outraged, not only by the bill itself but also by the rhetoric that was used to sell it. Far from being reassured of all the bill's merits, Americans feel betrayed. Check the record. I doubt that one Democrat who voted for this bill told their constituents they would see a change in their plans. Yet here we are a year later and they just expect people to accept it. Democrats knew exactly what Americans wanted to hear, and that is what they told them. Perhaps the biggest deception of all was the claim that people could keep the plans they have.

OK, what else do we know about the bill? At a time when nearly 14 million Americans are looking for work, we know this bill only increases costs and burdens on employers and small businesses, making it even harder for them to keep current workers on board or to hire new ones. According to the independent Congressional Budget Office, the health care bill will result in the loss of more than 800,000 jobs over the next 10 years. What is more, 200 economists and experts, including two former CBO Directors, have said that the law's ``expensive mandates and penalties . . . create major barriers to stronger job growth.''

Another chief selling point of the bill is the promise that it would lower costs. Yet now we hear estimates from one of the administration's top actuaries that it will increase costs by $311 billion. And the CBO now estimates it will increase Federal health care spending by nearly $\1/2\ trillion over the next decade.

What about the cost to individuals and families? Well, according to the same independent analyst at the CBO, once fully implemented, the bill is expected to cause premiums on family policies to increase an average of $2,100 a year. So $311 billion more in cost to the government; $2,100 a year more in cost to the average family.

Meanwhile, other new rules are making it difficult for families to secure child-only plans. The fact that families in 19 States no longer have access to these once-common plans is just one of the harmful, unintended consequences Americans are stuck with now that the ``fog of controversy'' has lifted.

Taken all together, these broken promises illustrate why so many Americans continue to support a full--a full--repeal, which the new Republican-led House has passed, followed by commonsense reforms that will actually lower costs, improve care, and protect jobs.

The fog of controversy may have lifted, but contrary to the confident predictions of some, the contents of the health care bill are even worse than anyone expected. One year later, it looks even worse than it did then, and that is saying something.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I rise to recognize a good friend of mine, a very special Kentuckian who I and many others can look up to, Mr. Richard Jay Corman of Nicholasville, KY. Mr. Corman is a successful businessman, a self-made man who started what is today a multimillion- dollar company. He is also living with cancer--and I do mean living, as for several years now he has continued to make the most of each day despite this disease, and he has become an inspiration for many.

Richard grew up on a farm that did not get indoor plumbing until he was in the fourth grade. Now he is the head of the R.J. Corman Railroad Group, a construction and railroad operation company he founded when he was 18 years old. When Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, the Corman Railroad Group was there, repairing the railways that had been damaged in dangerous conditions, and Richard was the one leading the operation. He is known for his intensity, his determination, and his indefatigable energy.

Richard has so much energy he has barely slowed down even after being diagnosed with multiple myeloma nearly 10 years ago. Without treatment, he was told he may have only a year to live. He survives thanks to a fantastic medical team, and Richard himself is funding medical research that is not only keeping him alive but will benefit untold others. And Richard is still working and running marathons.

I am proud to call Richard Jay Corman a friend and I think his life story holds lessons and inspiration for others. I read an article in Fortune magazine recently that was a fascinating look at Richard's life and work. 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, the rising cost of gasoline has become a major source of concern for most Americans. With prices in most States moving closer and closer to $4 a gallon, and already higher in some areas, America has a right to know where the President and Democrats in Congress stand on the issue.

Let me begin this morning with a simple observation that it is no accident gas prices are skyrocketing at a time when Democrats control two-thirds of official Washington. It is no secret Democratic leaders in Washington do not particularly care for this issue. Ask them about gas prices and chances are they will tell you about some car they plan to build and have ready for production about 25 years down the road. Suggest we tap some of our domestic sources of oil and they will give you 101 reasons we cannot and how that is not a real solution anyway because it will take too long to get it out of the ground.

We have been having that particular argument for decades now-- literally for decades. Then they have the audacity to step in front of the cameras and tell us they are all for reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil. With what--windmills?

It is time to be serious about a serious problem. The fact is, there is no reason in the world we cannot invest in future technologies at the same time we are tapping into the resources we already have right here at home and creating jobs while we do it. But Democrats do not seem to like that idea. They would rather force a change in behavior now than giving struggling American families the relief they need from the rising gas prices.

Do not listen to what they say on the issue, watch what they do. Here is what they have done.

Over the past 2 years, the Obama administration has delayed, revoked, suspended, or canceled an enormous range of development opportunities.

One month after the President took office, his administration canceled 77 oil and gas leases in Utah. Once the review was complete, the administration refused to reinstate even a single one.

A month after that, the administration shortened lease terms for offshore oil and gas production and raised fees for permit applications.

Last January, it announced new restrictions for onshore oil and gas exploration in the mountain West.

Last February, it denied a permit to build a bridge needed to access an oil-producing field in Alaska, after the Environmental Protection Agency designated a nearby river an aquatic resource of national importance.

Last April, the administration suspended 61 oil and gas leases in Montana that were issued in 2008 and then announced that all oil and gas leases in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota would be delayed indefinitely.

Last May, the President announced a 6-month moratorium on deepwater drilling--a moratorium that has been repeatedly struck down in the courts.

The list of actions such as these go on and on, and that is to say nothing of the proposed new Environmental Protection Agency regulations on energy that would either cause oil refineries to pass along their resulting new production costs to consumers at the pump or drive them and their jobs overseas.

Let there be no doubt, the efforts of the White House are costing jobs and putting even more pressure on gas prices. Paying lipservice to the public's concerns will not solve the problem. Unlocking our own sources of energy at home would help immensely.

Just to give an idea of the kind of resources we have right here at home, consider that just one 2,000-acre section of the nonwilderness sections of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, along with the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, have enough recoverable oil to replace crude imports from the Persian Gulf for nearly 65 years--65 years.

The problem is not that we need to look elsewhere for energy. The problem

is that Democrats in Washington will not let us use it. The problem is that even with gas prices on the rise, they want to tax it even more.

Let's make this simple. I am going to propose just two concrete practical things we can do in Washington to give the American people some relief, create jobs, and help us be less dependent on foreign sources of oil, two ideas that would have wide bipartisan support. Let's increase American energy production, and let's block any new regulations that will drive up the production costs for energy. These are two ideas that will create jobs and alleviate the increasing pressure on gas prices.

Let's leave the ideology aside and do some practical good for Americans who are struggling out there. Let's increase American production of energy with American jobs and stop the job-stifling regulations.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I would say to my friend from Arizona, he is entirely correct. I don't intend, myself, to support another continuing resolution. It does not contain the full-year Defense appropriations bill. I think everybody understands the urgency of that. My friend from Arizona, our leader on these issues, has been very clear and articulate about it. I can say with total confidence that the House and Senate are not going to be passing another continuing resolution without the funding for the Defense Department for the remainder of this fiscal year.

I would say to my friend, I believe his position is shared by the leadership of our party in the House, and I think there is no chance we will not complete work on the Defense appropriations bill in the next few weeks.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Ohio, I have listened with great interest to his first speech in the Senate. I was particularly interested in his reference to Robert A. Taft, whose portrait is in the Republican leader's office and has been there for some time. In fact, the place that is currently the office of the Republican leader became the office of the Republican leader about the time Senator Taft, in that all-too-brief period, was majority leader. He was actually only in that position for about 8 months before he passed away, but he left an incredible impression in this town, which the junior Senator from Ohio pointed out.

Listening to the new Senator from Ohio, he is entirely able to fill the shoes of those who have come before representing the great State of Ohio in the Senate. He made reference to some of them. I predict by the time the Senator from Ohio leaves this body, he will be widely referred to in the same category.

I thank him for his important first contribution in the Senate.

Mr. President, with gas prices on the rise, Americans want to know what Washington is going to do about it. So let me provide a little update: The White House has responded by locking up domestic energy supplies and pushing an energy tax that will drive gas prices up even higher and Democrats in Congress aren't doing anything at all.

So we have a total disconnect right now between Democrats in Washington when it comes to gas prices. Both the White House and Democrats in Congress are acting as if they haven't seen a nightly newscast or driven by a gas station in weeks.

Senator Inhofe, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Barrasso have done a terrific job of raising the alarm on the administration's efforts to lock up domestic energy, even as it continues to push costly new regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency. I wish to commend them for their efforts on this most important and timely issue. They have shown how American families are getting a double whammy right now. Refiners would pass the costs related to these regulations on to consumers, and the White House's efforts to lock up domestic energy production puts even more pressure on gas prices.

If you are just tuning in, let's review what the White House has been up to on that front: They have resisted our push for American production offshore, onshore and in Alaska and the jobs that go along with it. They have canceled existing drilling permits and the jobs that come with them. They have needlessly delayed offshore leases, which even former President Clinton has referred to as ridiculous. They have imposed a moratorium on oil and gas drilling, which amounts to a moratorium on domestic energy-related jobs. They have proposed a tax on domestic energy production that might be called a ``minivan tax.'' Now they are trying to impose a backdoor national energy tax through the

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, not often in life does someone get a second opportunity to make a good first impression. The Senator from Indiana has had a chance to make two maiden speeches in the Senate. I confess I was not there for the first one, but I am pleased to have been here for the second, and I want to commend him for his extraordinary speech, particularly his emphasis on the importance of the President of the United States leading on the issue of entitlement reform.

We all know that under the Constitution only the President's signature can make a law. I think what the Senator from Indiana has pointed out, and many others have pointed out, is that on the issue of entitlement reform--the over $50 trillion of unfunded liabilities we have lying out there ahead of us; promises we have made we cannot keep--this cannot be done without Presidential leadership and a Presidential signature. I thank the Senator from Indiana for reminding us all of that. We all still hope the President will step up and help us meet this enormous challenge. I commend the Senator from Indiana for a wonderful first impression.