Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to congratulate Solicitor General Kagan on her nomination. Senate Republicans will treat Ms. Kagan with the same courtesy and fairness with which we treated Justice Sotomayor when she was nominated to the Supreme Court last year. The rest of the Republican Conference and I appreciated that at the end of her confirmation process, then-Judge Sotomayor recognized that she had been treated fairly by everyone. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case with Supreme Court nominees of Republican Presidents.

The American people know what they want in a Supreme Court Justice. They want someone who will apply the law fairly and impartially ``without respect to persons,'' as the judicial oath requires. They do not want someone to be a rubberstamp for any administration.

Ms. Kagan is currently a member of President Obama's administration and serves at his pleasure in a position that lasts no longer than the administration itself. By contrast, today she was nominated for a lifetime appointment to the Nation's highest Court. The standard of scrutiny is clearly much higher

now. Now we must determine whether someone who is a member of the President's administration will be an independent and impartial jurist on the Nation's highest Court.

The American people also want a nominee with the requisite legal experience. They instinctively know a lifetime position on the Supreme Court does not lend itself to on-the-job training. Of course, one does not need to have prior experience as a judge before being appointed to the country's highest Court, but it strikes me that if a nominee does not have traditional experience, they should have substantial litigation experience. Ms. Kagan has neither, unlike Justice Rehnquist, for instance, who was in private practice for 16 years prior to his appointment as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, a job he had at the time of his appointment to the Supreme Court.

But exploring these questions is precisely what the nominations process is all about. Starting today, both parties will begin the process of carefully reviewing Ms. Kagan's brief litigation experience as well as her judgment and her career in academia, both as a professor and as an administrator. Fulfilling our duty to advise and consent on a nomination of this office requires a thorough process, not a rush to judgment. Senate Republicans will have vigorous debate on the importance of equal justice under law. This principle lies at the very heart of our judicial system. We will diligently review Ms. Kagan's record to ensure that she shares this principle and that she possesses the requisite experience to serve on the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am going to proceed for a few moments on my leader time.

Mr. President, we continue to learn more about the terrorist who attempted to kill scores of innocent Americans in Times Square earlier this month.

The President's assistant for counterterrorism, John Brennan, now says Faisal Shahzad was working on behalf of the Pakistan Taliban, or TTP, all along.

What this event and the aftermath have shown is that the administration has what can most charitably be described as an evolving strategy on dealing with captured terrorists.

This was perfectly clear over the weekend when Attorney General Holder said in reference to the Times Square bomber that America is ``now dealing with international terrorists,'' and this may require changes to when and how terrorists are issued Miranda warnings.

Now dealing with international terrorists? I remind the Attorney General that we have been very much at war with international terrorism for a long time and that we face threats in this war from those who attacked us on 9/11, al-Qaida's associated groups, those who attack our troops every day in Afghanistan and Iraq, the man who tried to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas, and men such as the one who plotted to maim and kill Americans in Times Square.

Once the administration realizes this, a lot of other questions will become a lot clearer. Unfortunately, the administration seems too often to have a trial-and-error approach.

On Guantanamo, they tried to close it and realized it was not that easy. On the question of the proper venue for trials, they announced they would try 9/11 mastermind Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City and then realized maybe that was not a good idea. When it came to the Christmas Day bomber, they treated him like a common criminal and then realized that might not have been the best route either.

Now, after learning the Times Square bomber is actually a tool of the Pakistani Taliban, they are wondering out loud again if they should revisit their approach to administering Miranda warnings.

Let's make it easy for the Attorney General. Every terrorist--every single one of them--every terrorist should be treated like one.

In the first months of the administration, the President signed Executive orders ending the CIA's interrogation program, demanding the closure of Guantanamo within a year, and essentially putting the Attorney General in charge of the war on terror.

More than a year after these Executive orders were signed and after several failed terrorist attacks on the homeland, the administration finally--finally--seems to realize the war on terror is not a simple matter of law enforcement. A clear and forceful strategy is needed just as much at home as it is needed abroad.

Republicans have been saying this all along. It is time the administration decides on a strategy that recognizes the implications of the war we are in and the dangers we face, not only abroad but right at home.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, last night, the Senate took a strong stance on protecting taxpayers from the unintended consequences of a bill that was originally meant to hold Wall Street accountable for its mistakes.

Put aside for a moment the latest talking points the other side is using about Republicans. Our goal throughout the debate has been to protect taxpayers who got burned during the last crisis, and last night's vote showed that those efforts are beginning to yield results.

A $50 billion fund for failing financial firms that would have distorted the market by encouraging the same kinds of risky investments that led to the last crisis is now out of the bill.

A provision that would have given investors in failing firms special treatment is out. Congress will now have to approve any government effort to ensure bank debt. So improvements are being made to this financial regulatory bill in the right direction.

Now it is time to focus on what has emerged as another central point of contention, and that is the new government bureaucracy this bill would create over at the Fed. The first thing to know about this new agency is that Congress would not have any power over it. The second thing to know is what it would do. Some of that is still vague, but the ambiguities are part of the problem.

What we do know is that this new agency would be authorized to gather information on banking and purchasing patterns and on anyone--anyone-- operating in consumer financial markets. One provision, section 1071, could lead financial institutions to maintain a record on the number and dollar amount that each customer deposits at bank branches and ATMs.

Now, understandably, a lot of Americans and a lot of small business owners have serious concerns about all of this. They are also concerned about the potential of this bill to further dry up credit at a time when they are trying to dig themselves out of a recession.

We received a letter just yesterday from groups representing hundreds of thousands of businesses--from florists to orthodontists to builders to car dealers--all concerned about the potential impact this new agency would have.

Now, let me state the obvious: None of these businesses had anything whatsoever to do with the financial crisis. None of these businesses had anything to do with the financial crisis. Why on Earth would we want to punish them for the reckless behavior we saw on Wall Street? Why on Earth would we want to punish these small businesses for the reckless behavior we saw on Wall Street?

The fact is, this agency is more about using this crisis as an opportunity to slip a vast new European-style regulatory bureaucracy past the American people than it is about holding Wall Street accountable.

I say let's focus on Wall Street and the GSEs and leave ordinary Americans out of this. Let's put the middle-class families and small business owners who shouldered the burden of this crisis ahead of the bureaucratic wish lists in Washington. At a moment of near double-digit unemployment and exploding debts and deficits, let's have at least one Democratic idea for expanding the reach of government on the shelf.

Later today, the Senate will have an opportunity to blunt the potential impact of this agency. Senator Shelby and I have joined several cosponsors on an amendment that would deflect the focus of this bill from Main Street and back to Wall Street where it belongs. Let's take the bill off Main Street and send it back to Wall Street where it belongs.

The National Federation of Independent Business supports our amendment because, in the place of this new bureaucratic agency, it would establish a new division within the FDIC that would oversee mortgage originators and other big financial service providers. That is where the target should lie--not on the backs of America's small businesses and middle-class Americans who expected to be protected by the bill, not punished by it.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to lose our focus in this debate. I also urge everyone to support the Shelby-McConnell amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

If my friend from Connecticut will yield for an observation, Mr. President, we may have 141 amendments, but they are not all equal. We are going to try to work our way through the major amendments in a serious way. This is a very important piece of legislation. The majority leader and I had a conversation earlier today on how to go forward. We will keep working on it in a systematic way and maximize a way for people to have votes on important amendments.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I am certainly not going to object; I just wanted to make sure everyone understands. So tomorrow would be debate only?

I want to echo the comments of the majority leader with regard to getting amendments prepared. It is to our advantage to have amendment votes. We are going to work hard to get them in the queue and to get them voted on.

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

Mr. President, all Americans are relieved that Federal and local law enforcement officials were able to track down and apprehend Faisal Shahzad, the man they believe to have been behind the attempted Times Square bombing. We were especially relieved the bomb never went off. Those who worked around the clock to find and capture Shahzad and extract a confession from him deserve our respect and our gratitude.

Senate Republicans are waiting to hear from the administration to what extent Shahzad had ties to terrorist groups in Pakistan, whether his efforts were part of a wider plot to strike the homeland, whether or not he was on the no-fly list, why he was permitted to board an international flight, and whether intelligence community interrogators have had access to Shahzad.

It has been my consistent view that when a terrorist is captured, members of our intelligence community must be able to interrogate the prisoner in order to extract intelligence. This is true whether the suspect is an American citizen, like Shahzad, or not an American, like the Christmas Day bomber. In this case, it is my hope the administration did all it could to gather all the relevant information it could.

NYC Terror Trials

Attorney General Holder indicated yesterday that the attempted Times Square bombing does not change the administration's thinking on the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and that the administration is still considering New York City as a venue for a civilian trial of KSM. The administration only shows that on this issue it does not get it.

That much was clear to anyone who watched yesterday's press conference.

Here was the New York Police Commissioner reminding reporters that no fewer than 11 terrorist plots have been directed at New York City since 9/11 and that, as he put it, nothing has changed with respect to terrorists coming to New York to hurt and kill Americans.

To me, it was jarring, in the face of that kind of cold reality and the repeated pleas of elected officials in New York from both parties, to see the Attorney General still stuck--still stuck--on the notion that holding these trials in downtown Manhattan is anything but a bad idea. Trying KSM in New York City was a bad idea last year. It is a bad idea today. The only thing that has changed is that the American people have just been reminded of how determined terrorists are to carry out their deadly plans.

As I have said repeatedly, Guantanamo is the right place to detain, interrogate, and try terrorists such as KSM. Guantanamo is a safe and secure, state-of-the-art facility where we can detain enemy combatants far from our communities and without fear of onsite retaliation. Some we hold indefinitely. Others we hold until we deem them safe for transfer to another country. Still others we can hold until we try them in military commissions, and we can do that right there at Guantanamo.

Guantanamo was a wise investment. It was built for good reason. Let's use it for the purpose for which it was built, rather than further endangering communities such as New York or burdening them with the disorder and the massive expense that would accompany a terror trial.

It is precisely because of potential dangers and difficulties such as these that we established military commissions in the first place. If we cannot expect the very people who masterminded the 9/11 attacks to fall within the jurisdiction of these military commissions, then who can we?

Americans do not want Guantanamo terrorists brought to the United States, and they do not want the men who planned the 9/11 attacks on America to be tried in civilian courts--risking national security and civic disruption in the process.

(The remarks of Mr. McConnell pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 29 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a joint resolution that would renew sanctions against the Burmese junta. As in years past, I am joined in this effort by my good friend Senator Feinstein. Senators McCain, Durbin, Gregg, and Lieberman are original cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation and continue to be leaders on the issue.

Renewing sanctions against the military regime in Burma is as timely and as important as ever. Over the past year, the regime has not only made clear that it has no intention of reforming, it is also trying to stand up a new sham constitution and to legitimize itself in the eyes of the world through a sham election. In my view, the United States must deny the regime that legitimacy.

By way of background, a little history is in order. For nearly half a century, Burma has been under some kind of military rule, and every popular effort to reverse that situation has failed. In 1988, military authorities violently put down a popular uprising. Two years later, the Burmese people went to the polls and handed an overwhelming victory to the prodemocracy opposition, and the junta ignored the results. It never seated these popularly elected candidates. It jailed prodemocracy leaders, such as Aung San Suu Kyi, and it has maintained its brutal rule ever since.

In response to these events, the United States established on a bipartisan basis various sanctions against the Burmese regime. These include a 1997 Executive order; the annual import ban, which has been renewed annually since 2003; and restrictions on Burmese jade, which were enacted in 2008.

On a number of occasions since 1990, the United States and the U.N. have attempted to engage Burma diplomatically. These include, during the Clinton administration, a delegation led by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Hubbard; various efforts by former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright; and two trips to Burma by then-Congressman Bill Richardson in the mid-1990s.

Other diplomatic efforts included Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill's ``roadmap'' in 2006, and overtures made by the United States through China in 2007. In 2008, ADM Timothy Keating met with Burmese officials as part of United States efforts to provide humanitarian assistance in the wake of Cyclone Nargis.

The U.N., for its part, has dispatched a human rights envoy to Burma 15 times and special envoys 26 times over the past two decades. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has visited Burma on two occasions.

None of these efforts has yielded anything in the way of reform. Indeed, when Burmese citizens, led by Buddhist monks, took to the streets in peaceful protest against the government and its policies in the fall of 2007, these prodemocracy protesters, much like their predecessors, were brutally suppressed.

Nonetheless, the regime has sought at various times to save face internationally. In response to this last major challenge to its authority in the fall of 2007, for example, the regime unveiled a proposed constitution. But a quick look at the document shows that it could scarcely have been less democratic. It precluded Suu Kyi from participating in the electoral process and ensured that the charter may not be amended without the military's blessing. The noted constitutional law professor, David Williams, of Indiana University, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year it was ``one of the worst constitutions [he had] ever seen.''

What is more, the vote to adopt this constitution took place 2 years ago in the immediate aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, the worst natural disaster in modern Burmese history, and international election observers were not permitted access to the country during the vote. If the regime was interested in legitimacy, holding a vote such as this in the middle of a natural disaster without election observers is not exactly the way to do it.

The results of this vote were roundly condemned, and for good reason. Still, despite widespread condemnation of this constitution and the circumstances surrounding its adoption, some held out hope that a subsequent election law might lead to democratic reform. But those hopes were dashed earlier this year when the regime actually issued the long-awaited election law. Among other things, the law would force the democratic opposition, the National League for Democracy, to expel Suu Kyi if the party chose to enter any of its candidates in the upcoming national election and it forbids political prisoners and Buddhist monks from political participation.

The deadline for registering candidates and political parties under the new law is later this week, and parties that fail to register before then will be deemed illegal. In other words, the law's practical effect would be to sideline Burma's most prominent democratic reformer and force its leading opposition party out of business.

We also get periodic press reports of ties between Burma and North Korea, including a particularly alarming report in recent days about an alleged weapons transfer from Pyongyang.

Last year, the Obama administration initiated a review of United States policy with respect to Burma. As a result of that review, the administration decided it is time for the United States to take another run at engaging the regime. That is why last summer Secretary Clinton reportedly proposed to

her Burmese counterpart at an international conference in Southeast Asia that the United States remove its investment ban on Burma in exchange for the unconditional release of Suu Kyi. Whatever the merits of this overture, this was a serious offer from a high ranking U.S. official aimed at improving bilateral relations.

Yet not only was Secretary Clinton's offer ignored and Suu Kyi not freed, the regime actually extended Suu Kyi's detention for another year and a half, and several months later, the junta denied her appeal. It was shortly after that that the regime released the antidemocratic election law I just referred to. So however well intentioned, the administration's policy of engagement has, unfortunately, met with the same fate as earlier engagement efforts, notwithstanding the fig leaves the regime occasionally holds out as supposed proof of its willingness to reform.

Clearly, the regime craves legitimization of its rule. Why else would it suddenly move to finalize the constitution it had been working on intermittently for 14 years after its rule was challenged by the nonviolent Saffron Revolution in the fall of 2007? They did it for the same reason they trotted out a transparently flawed election law earlier this year: They wanted to provide the appearance of reform where there was none. But they cannot have it both ways. If the regime wants legitimization, it must show real progress.

Secretary Clinton's policy review toward Burma concluded

that engagement along with sanctions might produce results

where sanctions alone had failed. Although we have yet to see

any positive results from engagement, the administration

itself concedes that sanctions should remain in place. But

the administration, to its credit, has been quite candid

about the lack of tangible progress by the regime.

Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell acknowledged as much after the release of the Burmese election law. He said:

[T]he U.S. approach was to try to encourage domestic

dialogue between the key stakeholders . . . and the recent

promulgation of the election criteria doesn't leave much room

for such a dialog.

It should be noted parenthetically the absence of any tangible result from engagement has nothing to do with the work of American diplomats. It has everything to do with the type of regime we are dealing with in Burma. But, again, the fact remains that no progress--none--has been made.

Legitimacy is the one thing the regime cannot impose by force. But if legitimacy is what it wants, a first step would be credible elections. At this point there is no reason to believe that is even possible under the current constitution, under the current election law, and in the current political climate in Burma.

Renewing sanctions is important because it denies the junta the legitimacy it so craves. A sanctions regime says to the junta and the world, in no uncertain terms, the United States does not view this government as having the support of its citizens. It says the United States will not be a party to recognizing the junta's attempts to overturn the democratic elections of 1990, the last true expression of the Burmese voters.

Sanctions should remain in place against the junta for the same reason the term ``Burma'' is used by friends of democracy instead of the junta's chosen name of ``Myanmar''--because Myanmar is the name of a government that has not been chosen by its people.

In short, sanctions should remain in place because lifting sanctions would give the regime precisely what it wants; namely, legitimacy.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support sanctions renewal against the Burmese regime.

I thank my friend from Connecticut.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a joint resolution that would renew sanctions against the Burmese junta. As in years past, I am joined in this effort by my good friend Senator Feinstein. Senators McCain, Durbin, Gregg, and Lieberman are original cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation and continue to be leaders on the issue.

Renewing sanctions against the military regime in Burma is as timely and as important as ever. Over the past year, the regime has not only made clear that it has no intention of reforming, it is also trying to stand up a new sham constitution and to legitimize itself in the eyes of the world through a sham election. In my view, the United States must deny the regime that legitimacy.

By way of background, a little history is in order. For nearly half a century, Burma has been under some kind of military rule, and every popular effort to reverse that situation has failed. In 1988, military authorities violently put down a popular uprising. Two years later, the Burmese people went to the polls and handed an overwhelming victory to the prodemocracy opposition, and the junta ignored the results. It never seated these popularly elected candidates. It jailed prodemocracy leaders, such as Aung San Suu Kyi, and it has maintained its brutal rule ever since.

In response to these events, the United States established on a bipartisan basis various sanctions against the Burmese regime. These include a 1997 Executive order; the annual import ban, which has been renewed annually since 2003; and restrictions on Burmese jade, which were enacted in 2008.

On a number of occasions since 1990, the United States and the U.N. have attempted to engage Burma diplomatically. These include, during the Clinton administration, a delegation led by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Hubbard; various efforts by former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine Albright; and two trips to Burma by then-Congressman Bill Richardson in the mid-1990s.

Other diplomatic efforts included Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill's ``roadmap'' in 2006, and overtures made by the United States through China in 2007. In 2008, ADM Timothy Keating met with Burmese officials as part of United States efforts to provide humanitarian assistance in the wake of Cyclone Nargis.

The U.N., for its part, has dispatched a human rights envoy to Burma 15 times and special envoys 26 times over the past two decades. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has visited Burma on two occasions.

None of these efforts has yielded anything in the way of reform. Indeed, when Burmese citizens, led by Buddhist monks, took to the streets in peaceful protest against the government and its policies in the fall of 2007, these prodemocracy protesters, much like their predecessors, were brutally suppressed.

Nonetheless, the regime has sought at various times to save face internationally. In response to this last major challenge to its authority in the fall of 2007, for example, the regime unveiled a proposed constitution. But a quick look at the document shows that it could scarcely have been less democratic. It precluded Suu Kyi from participating in the electoral process and ensured that the charter may not be amended without the military's blessing. The noted constitutional law professor, David Williams, of Indiana University, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year it was ``one of the worst constitutions [he had] ever seen.''

What is more, the vote to adopt this constitution took place 2 years ago in the immediate aftermath of Cyclone Nargis, the worst natural disaster in modern Burmese history, and international election observers were not permitted access to the country during the vote. If the regime was interested in legitimacy, holding a vote such as this in the middle of a natural disaster without election observers is not exactly the way to do it.

The results of this vote were roundly condemned, and for good reason. Still, despite widespread condemnation of this constitution and the circumstances surrounding its adoption, some held out hope that a subsequent election law might lead to democratic reform. But those hopes were dashed earlier this year when the regime actually issued the long-awaited election law. Among other things, the law would force the democratic opposition, the National League for Democracy, to expel Suu Kyi if the party chose to enter any of its candidates in the upcoming national election and it forbids political prisoners and Buddhist monks from political participation.

The deadline for registering candidates and political parties under the new law is later this week, and parties that fail to register before then will be deemed illegal. In other words, the law's practical effect would be to sideline Burma's most prominent democratic reformer and force its leading opposition party out of business.

We also get periodic press reports of ties between Burma and North Korea, including a particularly alarming report in recent days about an alleged weapons transfer from Pyongyang.

Last year, the Obama administration initiated a review of United States policy with respect to Burma. As a result of that review, the administration decided it is time for the United States to take another run at engaging the regime. That is why last summer Secretary Clinton reportedly proposed to

her Burmese counterpart at an international conference in Southeast Asia that the United States remove its investment ban on Burma in exchange for the unconditional release of Suu Kyi. Whatever the merits of this overture, this was a serious offer from a high ranking U.S. official aimed at improving bilateral relations.

Yet not only was Secretary Clinton's offer ignored and Suu Kyi not freed, the regime actually extended Suu Kyi's detention for another year and a half, and several months later, the junta denied her appeal. It was shortly after that that the regime released the antidemocratic election law I just referred to. So however well intentioned, the administration's policy of engagement has, unfortunately, met with the same fate as earlier engagement efforts, notwithstanding the fig leaves the regime occasionally holds out as supposed proof of its willingness to reform.

Clearly, the regime craves legitimization of its rule. Why else would it suddenly move to finalize the constitution it had been working on intermittently for 14 years after its rule was challenged by the nonviolent Saffron Revolution in the fall of 2007? They did it for the same reason they trotted out a transparently flawed election law earlier this year: They wanted to provide the appearance of reform where there was none. But they cannot have it both ways. If the regime wants legitimization, it must show real progress.

Secretary Clinton's policy review toward Burma concluded

that engagement along with sanctions might produce results

where sanctions alone had failed. Although we have yet to see

any positive results from engagement, the administration

itself concedes that sanctions should remain in place. But

the administration, to its credit, has been quite candid

about the lack of tangible progress by the regime.

Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell acknowledged as much after the release of the Burmese election law. He said:

[T]he U.S. approach was to try to encourage domestic

dialogue between the key stakeholders . . . and the recent

promulgation of the election criteria doesn't leave much room

for such a dialog.

It should be noted parenthetically the absence of any tangible result from engagement has nothing to do with the work of American diplomats. It has everything to do with the type of regime we are dealing with in Burma. But, again, the fact remains that no progress--none--has been made.

Legitimacy is the one thing the regime cannot impose by force. But if legitimacy is what it wants, a first step would be credible elections. At this point there is no reason to believe that is even possible under the current constitution, under the current election law, and in the current political climate in Burma.

Renewing sanctions is important because it denies the junta the legitimacy it so craves. A sanctions regime says to the junta and the world, in no uncertain terms, the United States does not view this government as having the support of its citizens. It says the United States will not be a party to recognizing the junta's attempts to overturn the democratic elections of 1990, the last true expression of the Burmese voters.

Sanctions should remain in place against the junta for the same reason the term ``Burma'' is used by friends of democracy instead of the junta's chosen name of ``Myanmar''--because Myanmar is the name of a government that has not been chosen by its people.

In short, sanctions should remain in place because lifting sanctions would give the regime precisely what it wants; namely, legitimacy.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support sanctions renewal against the Burmese regime.

I thank my friend from Connecticut.

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

Madam President, Americans were happy to learn this morning that late last night Federal and local officials in New York City apprehended the man they believe to have attempted a terrorist attack in Times Square on Saturday.

I join all Americans in thanking the law enforcement officials who worked around the clock these past two days. It looks like they got their man, and we are grateful for their efforts on our behalf.

It is my understanding that the suspect, a naturalized American citizen, is a native of Pakistan and that he traveled there at some point in the past year. Hopefully the appropriate officials are using this opportunity to exploit as much intelligence as he may have about his overseas connections and any other plots against Americans either here or abroad.

But this is very good news, and again, we want to thank those who work so hard to keep us safe and to protect us from ongoing threats. As I said yesterday, this plot is a reminder to all of us of the need for constant vigilance and to never drop our guard.

kentucky flooding

I would also like to say a word about the flooding in Kentucky.

Last night Governor Beshear said he would seek a major disaster declaration from the President to help recover from the devastation wrought by a round of weekend storms and collateral flooding, and I will be sending a letter to the President today in support of Kentucky's request for a major disaster declaration which would provide direct Federal logistical support and cost sharing assistance to mitigate the effects of the flooding.

Emergency declarations have been made in 48 counties throughout the Commonwealth, and that number is likely to increase as recovery efforts continue. Tragically, four people have been confirmed dead as a result of flooding in Madison, Barren, Allen, and Lincoln Counties.

My office has been in contact with the Governor's office, and we will do all we can to assist him. It is my understanding that Governor Beshear has spoken with the President about the situation and that FEMA is already working with State authorities in Kentucky to render assistance.

Our prayers are with the victims of the flooding in both the Commonwealth and in her sister State of Tennessee and our gratitude goes out to the first responders and emergency personnel rendering aid to the impacted communities.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, ordinarily the Democratic leader would go first. He will be here momentarily. I will go ahead with my opening statement.

Mr. President, we are deeply concerned about what is going on in gulf coast right now as this massive oil slick spreads even further and makes its way toward the coast. The entire Nation is bracing itself for the full impact of this disaster, which, as we all know, could get far worse.

Our focus at the moment is on stopping the leak and mitigating the damage as quickly as possible, so we will be paying close attention to the administration and to local officials on the ground to assist them in those efforts as the oil comes ashore. We are all hoping that the coordinated efforts of local, State, and Federal officials, along with BP workers, will prevent a worst-case scenario.

No one is ignorant of the impact this spill has already had and could potentially have on the environment, the economy of the gulf, or on the thousands and thousands of individuals and families whose lives and livelihoods are rooted, in some cases for generations, in the fish and wildlife that live in these coastal waters. It is heartbreaking to think of those who live in this region enduring yet another tragedy, but we are inspired by their resilience and by the tireless efforts of those engaged in the repair and recovery efforts.

Tragedies like this are a reminder of the dangers so many Americans endure every day in the work of keeping America moving, and of the fragility of the environment. Our prayers remain with the families of those who were lost in the initial explosion. We will also be keeping the repair and recovery workers in our thoughts as we continue to monitor the situation. Once the flow has been stopped and help is on the way, there will be a full investigation into what went wrong and what can be done to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.

Meanwhile, a potential tragedy appears to have been averted over the weekend thanks to the vigilance of ordinary citizens and the quick response of law enforcement officials in New York City. We were all alarmed to learn of the attempted car bombing in Times Square but relieved that it failed to go off.

All of this was a vivid reminder of the continual threats to our security and of the need to remain vigilant and to never drop our guard. New Yorkers responded to this attempted attack just as we would expect them to. Within hours, Times Square was again full of tourists, and on Broadway every show went ahead as scheduled on Sunday. So we applaud the people of New York and the local and Federal law enforcement officials who snapped into gear to disarm the car bomb and who continue to investigate this situation.

Here in the Senate, debate continues on the financial regulatory bill. I will just note as we continue this debate that a consensus seems to be emerging among the experts and the public about two thing. First, it would be deeply irresponsible to rush a piece of legislation this far-reaching without fully understanding its potential impact on ordinary Americans who had nothing to do with the financial crisis.

Second, any bill that comes out of the Senate must actually address the core problems that led to the crisis. This should be obvious, but the fact is, a lot of people are increasingly concerned that this bill could actually miss the mark completely, not just as a result of what it does, but as a result of what it fails to do.

On example is Federal housing policy, as embodied by the government- sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In my view, it is simply not acceptable for some on the other side to suggest that we have to rush this particular bill through Congress, but that it is OK to wait another year to address the GSEs, which we all know played a central role in the financial crisis.

So Republicans will work to make sure this bill actually addresses the problems at hand, and that in an effort to rein in Wall Street, this bill doesn't actually end up hurting those who had nothing to do with this crisis.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, many Kentuckians awoke this morning to the sad news that one miner was killed and another is missing after a ceiling collapse in an underground coal mine in Webster County, which is in the western part of Kentucky.

Right now, it is my understanding that MSHA officials are on the site and rescue teams are working to locate the missing miner. For now we can only hope their efforts are successful.

I ask my colleagues and the American people to keep the miners, their families, and the rescue workers in their prayers.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man from Keavy, KY, who bravely served his country in World War II.

Morris Black was drafted at age 19, and he proudly put on his uniform and left his friends and family behind. Among those left behind was his sweetheart and future wife, Ms. Pauline Cassidy. During the Battle of the Bulge, while serving in one of the most exposed roles within his company--a field medic--Black was injured in both his head and leg. In a subsequent battle, he rushed from one wounded soldier to the next, providing as much care as possible, while coming under heavy enemy fire. For his heroic service as a field medic, Mr. Black received several medals, awards, and decorations, including the Purple Heart and the Silver Star.

Unfortunately, field medic Black's well-deserved accolades would not be presented to him for another 60 years due to bureaucratic oversight. Mr. Black finally received these medals on March 7, 2010. Though he is appreciative, he is quick to point out that his service was not done for the purpose of winning medals; it was to help the soldiers that needed his assistance in those critical moments.

The Corbin Times-Tribune recently ran a story about Morris Black's service. As Mr. Black recalls his experience in the interview, he says, ``There were times when I didn't know whether I'd make it home or not, but I did. There is no greater honor than to fight for your country.''

Today, I know my colleagues will join me in paying tribute to his service and I ask unanimous consent that the full article from the Times-Tribune be printed in the Record.