Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to my colleague. What a great gentleman. This is an august body, a wonderful place, a delightful place to serve. It has great issues before it. There are people who are gentlemen and gentleladies in it who conduct themselves in one of the highest regards and highest abilities. And when I think of that, I think of George Voinovich. He is a really good guy, a real gentleman in the Senate, and a man who lives his faith, believes it, which is tough to do in this body. It is tough to do in any position in life. Yet he does it and has done it for over four decades in public service to the people in the State of Ohio and the people of the United States. That is quite a tribute.

He and his wife I get to see often. When I think of the expression ``two people becoming one,'' I don't know if I could describe it any better than the Voinovichs, how two become one.

The smile is the same. The look is the same. The attitude is just a wonderful togetherness that the two of them live. At a time when marriages have a lot of difficulties, it is great to see an example of somebody in high office who has lived in public life for over four decades and then has this oneness in their marital relationship. I think they both have served in that capacity, whether it is for their family or for the people of Ohio or the United States.

Living publicly the right way and living privately the right way are both beautiful attributes and difficult things to be able to get done, and it is great to be able to see it happen. For that, I give great tribute to a wonderful American, George Voinovich.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for setting up this period of time. This will be my last speech, probably, to the body. It is a speech I wish to give in talking about leaving the Senate of the United States.

I was just elected to be Governor of Kansas, and I am very excited about that post. I have served here a period of 14 years, which has been a wonderful chance to be able to serve the people of Kansas--the people of the United States. I love this body and I love this country.

A lot of folks, when they leave, talk about partisanship and the bickering. I like to think about the beauty of the country and the ability to come together because it does happen. The predecessor of the person sitting in the Presiding Officer's seat and I worked on one of the flagship pieces of legislation on human rights protection. It was on human trafficking, the initial bill. That was with Senator Paul Wellstone, who was from Minnesota. He was a delightful individual. It was a great chance for us to work together on something, and we couldn't have been further apart. I think he was ranked the second most liberal Member of the Senate. He aspired to be No. 1, but he was second. But he was a delightful man and he dealt from the heart and we got things done.

I say that because I think that is how we work in this place; that we fight on about 20 percent of the issues--and they are important, big issues--and then we cooperate and work together on a whole host of broad bipartisan issues, such as dealing with things like human trafficking. You do that primarily with people who deal from the heart--people such as Paul Wellstone, Ted Kennedy, and Jesse Helms. There are a lot of others, and many people get many things done in this body, but I think it is best when people deal from the heart. When they do that, then there is a chance for us to come together around key and heartfelt things. This has been a great body to serve in and I have delighted in being able to do that.

There is much to be done, much to be done for the country. We have to deal with the creation of jobs in America. We have to deal with our debt and our deficit. We have many issues to deal with. My hope for here, and my hope for our country, is that we go back to the virtues of the ``greatest generation'' and look to them for ways to move forward. It is looking back at the old path of what worked in tough times and moving it forward on the new path.

I came into this seat after Bob Dole served in this body. He served in this seat. Senator Dole from Kansas is the iconic figure of the World War II generation, of that ``greatest generation.'' He just got out of Walter Reed Hospital. He has been very sick and ill this year. He is coming back, recuperating. I think he is 87 years old this year.

Most everybody in America would agree about the ``greatest generation.'' They would say that World War II generation hit the mark of what it is to be an American, what it is to sacrifice, what it is to fight for a good cause. They did it with a set of virtues that are timeless, that are known, and I think we have to emulate this time for us to deal with the problems we have now. They were courageous; they were selfless; they were courteous; they were people who would fight for a cause. They were the ones who exhibited charity, thrift. That was certainly known in that generation. I think these are things we have to bring back--hard work, compassion.

It seems to me, when I think of that generation--and nobody is perfect and that generation is not perfect--those are ideals I saw in practice, whether it was them on the battlefield in World War II or if it was them raising their families at home or if it was their educating of their families, if it was saving for future generations; that is what they did.

I don't know, if you ask people of that generation, did you do this on purpose, they might say we did or didn't. Most of them would say this was the right thing to do and it is the thing we needed to do. I think it is what we need to do now. I think we need to emulate those virtues of the ``greatest generation'' and apply them to our problems.

Their problems were more foreign than ours. Ours I believe are more domestic, dealing with our own debt and deficit as a country and as a society and as individuals and individual households; us creating and saving for that next generation in the country and investing to do that, and being selfless and sacrificial in doing that. Building family structure and doing that which is for the good of our families is what we need to do, and that virtue and that old, ancient path they followed, that they said we did because it was a thing we needed to do, I think we have to do the same thing. I hope we will as a country.

There has been a debate that started in America that I do not agree with, and it is whether this is a special country and whether America is an exceptional land. I for one fully embrace the notion that this is a special place. I believe in American exceptionalism and I have been in many places over the world where you see this in action. I have been in many places in America where you see this in action, where somebody selflessly takes care of other individuals.

Last night I was at the Korean Embassy and we were talking about what is taking place in North Korea, and one of the people working there at the South Korean Embassy was amazed that people in the United States would care what happens to people in North Korea. I said one of the people with me was saying that is how we look at the world. If somebody else is in bondage, if somebody else is in difficulty, we feel that and we want to help to deal with it. That, to me, is part of what American exceptionalism is all about.

This is a special place and has a special calling. If it is not us doing it, in many cases around the world it does not get done. I have been in the Sudan and they are not calling on the Chinese to lead Sudan into a freer time period. I have been in other places--in Africa, on the North Korean border. If you are looking for somebody to solve the problem, it is the Americans who go in and do it.

Our task now is to not only do that around the world, but it is to do it domestically. I think we have to look more and more at ourselves and say we are a special place and I think we have to look at ourselves as the baby boomer generation that I am a part of and say you have to prove and earn your exceptionalism. I think we have to step up to the mark as the ``greatest generation'' did and be willing to serve in a tough way, in a sacrificial way, in the best interests of the future of our country. We have to do it and now is the time to do it.

I am appreciative that the President had a deficit task force he appointed and that they came up with some ideas, with some of which I agree, with some of which I disagree. But I am glad they started the discussion and the debate. If the figures I have seen are accurate, half the American households receive an entitlement check from the Federal Government--half of the American households. We have a deficit and debt that is structural. It is not based upon one-time war funding, although war funding has contributed to it, but it is structural in that we have more going out than we have coming in. It is time this is dealt with. I think that is part of the message from this last election cycle. The American people are ready to have an intelligent discussion, a difficult discussion of what we are going to do to be able to save ourselves fiscally. Now is the time to do it.

We actually have the structure set up to do it. With a Republican House, Democratic Senate, Democratic Presidency. This would be the time and the structure to talk about this sort of difficult issue. Our generation should step up and deal with it. I am not going to be here for that discussion and debate, but it is time we have it and it is time we bring back these timeless virtues to deal with our domestic problems the way we have dealt with international problems in the ``greatest generation.''

As I leave this body, one of the rites of passage is to sign your desk, and I just did that. I did it in pencil. I figure that all of us will fade with time and that signature will fade with time as well. But the things you remember are what you touched and that touched you and the souls that are touched. It is people who deal from the heart who are the ones who touch your life and the ones who touch your soul. I want to express my deep appreciation to my colleagues who have touched my heart. I hope I have been a positive statement to many of them.

The psalm that comes to mind is one that says: ``And his place knew him no more.''

The psalmist wrote: ``His place knew him no more.'' After a period of time you sign the desk, you move on, and then you look back and see the signatures in the desk and you don't recognize many of them. The place will know us no more. But the hearts that we touch, the hearts that touch ours, we will remember forever, and I certainly will.

I thank you and my colleagues in the Senate for letting me serve with you. It has been a great joy. It is a fabulous nation, the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, and it was an honor to serve here.

God bless America.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in relation to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010 and to congratulate my colleagues on its unanimous passage. This legislation is vital not only to sanction Iran for bad behavior but to signal to the Government of Iran our determination to keep them from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons and from supporting terrorism throughout the Middle East region and around the world.

It did not have to be this way. Iran has been given every opportunity to change its ways and has chosen not to do so. Iran represents one of the biggest threats to our security, and these sanctions should help restrict Iran's ability to operate.

Specifically, this legislation will expand sanctions on foreign companies that do business in Iran. It will ban U.S. banks from conducting financial transactions with foreign banks that are connected to the Iranian nuclear program or Iran's terrorist enterprises.

It imposes a variety of new financial sanctions on Iran, limiting the mullahs' access to the international banking system. And, among other provisions, provides a framework for U.S., state, and local governments to divest their portfolios of foreign companies that work in the Iranian energy sector.

In the past, the United States has not fully utilized its sanctions authority when it comes to Iran. Obviously, enforcement is crucial. Sanctions are only effective when they are actually applied. I urge the administration, in the strongest terms possible, to make full use of the sanctions Congress has authorized in this bill.

It is no secret that Iran is openly hostile to the United States and our important allies, and failing to act would be foolish and irresponsible. The Government of Iran has rejected every opportunity to develop good relations with the rest of the world and sanctions are a logical and necessary response.

We must send a strong, unified message to Tehran and to those who aid their tyrannical ambitions. Terrorism, oppression, and subjugation ought not have any place in society. This legislation imposes financial sanctions and travel restrictions on human rights abusers in Iran. Passage of this legislation helps demonstrate that we reject the repression of the rulers in Tehran and support the efforts of the Iranian people to change their government.

And, I hope that the people of Iran will understand that is our goal here. We support the people of Iran. We support their right to chose their own leaders and chart their own future. We stand with them against the tyranny of the mullahs.

Iranians have a long and proud history, and are some of the most passionate and courageous people I have met. They are just as opposed to the actions of the Iranian regime as we are.

In fact, a little over a year ago, the people of Iran went to the polls to vote for a leader and saw their hopes for a democratically elected leader brutally crushed by a regime unwilling to cede its power. People around the world stood breathlessly, hoping the brave men and women of the Green Revolution would see their efforts rewarded.

Instead of listening to the people of Iran, Ahmadinejad and his cronies killed, imprisoned, and tortured those who were brave enough to speak out in opposition to tyranny.

Unfortunately, this violent course of action is not a recently developed tactic. To this day, there are members of the Green Revolution sitting in prison. Christians are killed for worshiping the God of their choosing, the free press has been silenced, women are brutally oppressed. The human rights abuses of Iran are extensive.

These sanctions are necessary because of the terrible nature of the regime. The rulers in Tehran have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted. They have subverted the interests of the Iranian people. They have manipulated the political process.

We in the United States of America have a duty to stand with the thousands of men and women in Iran who long for the basic rights that we in America take for granted. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of the press. These are the things the Iranian people long for, and these are the things I am confident they will one day enjoy.

Obviously, freedom for the Iranian people will require much more than legislation from the U.S. Congress, but we ought to do what we can, and this bill sends a strong signal at a key time for our efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program and for the people of Iran who seek a more representative government. I hope we take additional steps to support the Iranian people's free and unfettered access to the internet, boost their ability to receive unbiased news and information and provide the support and assistance they need to sustain the reform movement in the face of a hostile and repressive government.

Senator Cornyn and I have introduced the Iran Democratic Transition Act, which supports the transition to a freely elected democratic government in Iran by assisting eligible Iranian democratic opposition organizations with communications and distribution of information. It is an important bill to aid the courageous people of Iran, and it is my hope that in the coming weeks the Senate will be able to bring this bill to the floor for a vote.

Today is a great step forward. I look forward to working with my colleagues on other ways that we can strengthen

opposition to the regime, halt the development of nuclear weapons, and support the Iranian people's drive for freedom.

Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join with my colleagues today and honor a native Kansan who, 52 years ago, committed an act of courage that was the basis for inspiring many civil rights movements throughout our country, the late Dr. Ronald Walters, humanitarian, civil rights activist and educator. In 1958, a young Ronald Walters returned to his hometown of Wichita, KS to work during his summer break from Fisk University in Nashville, TN. Like most college students, Ronald would often eat at one of the local Wichita hangouts for his lunch break, which, at the time, were segregated. Seeing the injustice of the segregation, Ronald and his cousin, Carol Parks, decided to organize a sit-in at one of the most popular lunch spots in Wichita, Dockum Drugstore. Ronald and his group of protestors silently sat at the Dockum's lunch counter in protest of their segregated policy. They were taunted for their action, but the taunting inspired more people to join the sit-in protest, both black and white.

After more than three weeks of the silent sit-in, the owner decided to discard the policy of segregated counters due to the fact the sit-in had caused him to lose too much money. Their success at Dockum's led Ronald and the group of protestors to continue their sit-ins at other segregated restaurants in Wichita. Though Ronald's sit-in was held in the middle of America--Wichita, KS--the effect reverberated around the Nation and is widely considered by scholars to be the Nation's first lunch-counter sit-in protests, which paved the way to ending segregation in our country.

Ronald Walters completed his education at Fisk University, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and Government, a Master of Arts in African Studies degree from American University in 1966, and a Doctor of Philosophy in International Studies degree from American University in 1971.

Dr. Walters went on to be an associate professor at both Syracuse and Brandeis Universities before moving to Howard University, where he stayed for 25 years and became the chair of the Political Science department from 1990-1996.

During his time at Howard, Dr. Walters continued his activism in civil rights policies. He worked as a Senior

Foreign Affairs Consultant for Congressman Charles Diggs, D-MI, and for Congressman William Gray, III, D-PA, in 1979. Dr. Walters was also chosen to be the Deputy Campaign Manager for Reverend Jesse Jackson's Presidential Campaign in 1984 and as the Conventions Operations Consultant in Reverend Jesse Jackson's 1988 Presidential run.

Dr. Walters was also a proud and active member of many national organizations, including the African Heritage Studies Association, American Political Science Association, the Kappa Alpha Psi, Omicron Delta Kappa, and Pi Sigma Alpha fraternities, and the National Conference of Black Political Scientists.

Dr. Walters not only was a civil rights activist, but a political scholar as well. He authored many articles and books throughout his life, and received awards for them, including the Ralph Bunche Award for the best book on race and politics from the American Political Science Association and the Best Book Award from the National Conference of Black Political Scientists.

Dr. Walters also received many academic awards, including the 1963 Reader's Digest Writing Award and the 1984 Distinguished Scholar/ Activist Award from The Black Scholar Magazine.

Dr. Walters left Howard to become a Professor of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland College Park from 1996-2009.

Dr. Walters' sit-in occurred almost two years before the better publicized lunch-room sit-ins in Greensboro, NC, but it had received little attention until 2006, when he was honored with a medal from the NAACP for organizing the historical Wichita, KS, sit-in.

Today, I am proud to join with my colleagues in the United States Senate to honor this Kansans' courageous actions in our Nation's history and his legacy of ensuring that America lives up to the ideals upon which it was founded. Dr. Walters was a true and great ambassador of freedom and democracy, whose lifelong dedication and service stand as an outstanding example of leadership for all mankind.

Mr. President, it wasn't an hour ago that we saw the lofty formation of four jets flying in formation over the burial site of Ted Stevens. Then, just as it passes over the site, one of the jets heads up, breaks formation, and heads into the sky above the others. It is such a memorable moment. I have seen this now twice, this formation. It is so memorable for me on this particular occasion because it is about a man who is so memorable.

Senator Ted Stevens served in this body for many years and is ``Mr. Alaska'' to this Nation's Capital and to many of the people in his home State. He is one of those soaring, towering figures who served in this body. He died at age 86 in a tragic accident, but he leaves a memory and a legacy that won't be forgotten.

One of the things I find so endearing about the memory of Ted Stevens is his tenacity in his work and his belief in the body. This guy would fight tirelessly for his State, for his beliefs, and for this body. He did it for a lengthy period of time through a number of different administrations and was an institution in and of his own right in what he did. I know the Presiding Officer, who works in this body and has served in this body, is someone who remembers Ted Stevens similarly.

I didn't realize some of the other aspects the Chaplain of the Senate talked about. There were about 6 years when Ted was President pro tempore of the Senate, so he would open the Senate every day. He would open the Senate, pledge allegiance to the flag, and then came the prayer. Senator Stevens at that time would go to the Chaplain and say: Let's bring up the prayer pressure, Chaplain--really urging him and us forward and to do things better and better for this country. It is a marvelous legacy to think about and to know about.

One of the beauties of serving in this body--and this is my last year in this body--is the people you get to meet and get to know. One thing that is always so striking to me is that while we deal with policy issues all the time, it is the people whom you touch who are so important and so critical. I think too often we look at it as a policy debate when I think we really should be looking at people's relationships. I say that from the standpoint that we need to be better in working together.

Ted Stevens had a beautiful relationship with Chairman Inouye across the aisle in the Appropriations Committee. It is often those relationships that get things done. People lament in leaving this body that it has gotten less civil, it is this or it is that. My analysis is that it has gotten less relational, and that is the real problem, is that people don't have relationships across the aisle with people whom they talk with and with whom they are friends. They disagree. They disagree on a lot of different things. They disagree probably on most things that are voted on. Yet when it comes to the end of the day and we have to get something moving and done, it is that relationship of trust and that here is a person who is a friend that you can work with is what counts. I think that is what we really need to look at much more, the relational needs. It is not something you can artificially do. It is something that has to take place over a period of time. It is something that has to take place over probably a period of a series of projects where, after a period of time, you say, you know, this is a person whom I can work with, whom I relate well with, and whom I trust. I think it is that trust that gets things done at the end of the day. It is that sort of thing you could often see in Ted Stevens.

Whenever Ted Stevens gave his word, you knew it was going to happen. If he had any way of doing it, it would be according to what he said. I had a friend of mine who once said that when a man breaks his word, it breaks the man. You could look at Ted Stevens and the guy was consistent; if he said he was going to do something, it was something he would stand with, and that is a good trait.

I bring these memories of Ted to the floor at a time when we have just witnessed the jet fly up toward the sky in memory of Ted Stevens and of his spirit and of his relational nature that he had within this body, with people he knew and who knew him, who trusted him and whom he trusted. I really commemorate that way of service, that time of service. I also commend to Members continuing in this body that we be a lot more relational and intentional about relating to one another so that we really look for those chances to do that.

God bless you, Ted Stevens.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and to the survivors, certainly, of that terrible plane crash that took Senator Stevens.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to inform the body that I have placed a hold on Executive Calendar nomination No. 1051, the nomination of Ambassador Frank Ricciardone to be Ambassador to the Republic of Turkey.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Just over a year ago, the Senate considered the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and today we continue the debate on Solicitor General Kagan's. Then, as now, I think it is fully appropriate for us to discuss the judicial philosophy of the nominees being put forward because of the increasing intrusion of the Supreme Court into very contentious issues within the society. If that is the case, then I think judicial philosophy needs to be discussed, and I think that is one that we need to consider in this nominee in Solicitor General Kagan.

The debate and discussion of Solicitor General Kagan's nomination followed a different path from the Sotomayor nomination, but it has led me to the same result: I have too many questions about the nominee's judicial philosophy to permit me to support the nomination to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

As I said last year, a nominee's judicial philosophy is a key concern at the heart of the Supreme Court confirmation process. For me, the question is whether a nominee to the Court supports an activist judicial philosophy that would invite the judiciary into all sorts of areas of American life where it has not intruded before, or whether they hold a more deferential view of the Constitution that would limit the role of the courts. It is really that view, of what is the appropriate role of the courts under the Constitution that I think is key, given the more activist role the Court has taken in this society in recent years.

As I noted during the Sotomayor debate, in my view, democracy is wounded when Justices on the high Court, who are unelected, invent constitutional rights and alter the balance of governmental powers in ways that find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution. Unfortunately, in recent years the courts have assumed a more aggressive political role.

In last year's confirmation debate, we talked a lot about whether a nominee's life story and experiences should be a significant factor in assessing that nominee. Whatever the merits of that debate, Judge Sotomayor was nominated as a Federal judge with a judicial background that offered some clues as to her judicial philosophy. With this nominee, we have comparatively little of written record to evaluate.

Solicitor General Kagan has no previous experience on the bench. If confirmed, she would be the first Supreme Court Justice without prior experience on the bench in almost 40 years. In order to hire anyone for any job, an employer looks at an applicant's past employment history. That is true for private sector jobs and public sector jobs. It is true for the staffs we maintain in the Senate and it is certainly true for Supreme Court nominees. I think most Americans would agree that prior judicial experience would be a good thing for a nominee to the Supreme Court to have. It is not a prerequisite for confirmation. Certainly, we have had Justices in the past who did not have any prior judicial experience. But I would suggest that since Solicitor General Kagan lacks prior experience on the bench, we have an obligation to look even more closely at the professional experience she does have.

There is no question she has an outstanding resume. Few people in America can say that they have her academic credentials, including an Ivy League law degree, as well as experience teaching at the University of Chicago and as the dean of Harvard Law School. And she has terrific political credentials, including working on the Dukakis for President campaign and as a policy adviser in the Clinton administration. Unfortunately, very little of her resume pertains to formal legal practice, let alone time on the bench.

So Solicitor General Kagan's experience is not necessarily the experience we would prefer, but it is the experience that we have to go on. And as I look through this professional experience, I see plenty of reasons to be concerned about the philosophy that she would bring to the bench.

In particular, I want to highlight her experience as a policy adviser. From the Presidential campaign trail in 1988 to the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Clinton White House, she has spent a great deal of time working on tough, highly contentious issues. In each of those cases, I think it is clear that she favors the kind of judicial activism that has concerned me throughout my time in the Senate. Her views, and the policies she has supported, endorse a role for the courts that I find very troubling. And let me be clear, whether or not I agree with her views on any particular issue, I am most concerned about the way those views will shape her still-emerging judicial philosophy.

For example, let's take a look at the life issue. As an adviser in the Clinton White House, Ms. Kagan led efforts to preserve partial- birth abortion. Obviously, I disagree with that position, as do most Americans, but that is the role that advisers often play inside the White House. Unfortunately in this case, however, the evidence shows Ms.

Kagan manipulated arguments about the need for a partial-birth abortion ban and whether such a ban is constitutional. When a draft scientific statement from a medical association threatened to undermine the policy she supported, Ms. Kagan seems to have rewritten that statement in a way that did not reflect the considered medical judgment of the association but was more in line with the policy she supported. Her explanation that she was merely helping the association state its own views more accurately does not bear scrutiny. This should be a red flag for Senators considering confirmation of someone to the Supreme Court. Without a judicial track record to evaluate, I am concerned about how she would apply her personally held views on similar matters if she is confirmed.

To turn to another example, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, the scandal over military recruitment at Harvard also shows evidence of politically held views coloring the nominee's legal judgment. Ms. Kagan opposed military recruiting on campus as part of a protest against the military's don't ask, don't tell policy, even during a time of war, denying the military access to Harvard's on- campus recruiting program while the university was receiving Federal money. It was apparent at the time that she was openly defying the intent of the Solomon Amendment, but she felt comfortable defying the law in the ``hope'' that the Defense Department would simply fail to enforce it. Her argument that law schools could take such steps despite the plain intent of the Solomon Amendment was, again, primarily a political argument with very little, if any, legal standing. The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with her.

Based on other statements she has made about issues ranging from military tribunals for detainees in the war on terrorism to political speech under the first amendment, there are numerous reasons to be concerned about how Solicitor General Kagan might apply the law as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

It is worth asking whether the solicitor general has ever argued that the law should be applied contrary to her political views. Perhaps I would not have to ask that question if we could assess extensive legal writings or a history of judicial rulings. But since this nominee lacks such experience, I am left to question how Ms. Kagan would let her political views shape her judicial philosophy. The weight of the available evidence clearly suggests political motivations for her legal views.

I have long believed that the judicial branch helps itself through refraining from action on political questions. This concept was perhaps best expressed by Justice Felix Frankfurter, a steadfast Democrat appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt.

Justice Frankfurter said this:

Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed

to be a good reflex of a democratic society. Their judgment

is best informed, and therefore most dependable, within

narrow limits. Their essential quality is detachment, founded

on independence. History teaches that the independence of the

judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the

passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in

choosing between competing political, economic and social

pressures. Primary responsibility for adjusting the interests

which compete in the situation before us of necessity belongs

to the Congress.

I would add, not to the court.

When the courts improperly assume the power to decide issues more political than legal in nature, the People naturally focus less on the law and more on the lawyers who are chosen to administer it. Some are keen to impose their policy agendas through the judicial process. Others want judges who will stick to interpreting the law, rather than making it. It is beyond dispute that the Constitution and its Framers intended for judges to satisfy the latter criteria.

I know that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have underscored Ms. Kagan's strong intellect and outstanding academic background as evidence that she would rule fairly if confirmed to the Court. Perhaps they are right. But we ought not be operating in the realm of ``perhaps'' when it comes to a Supreme Court appointment. Advise and consent is a serious matter and we have to do better than ``maybe.'' As I read about Ms. Kagan's experience and background and look for clues to her judicial philosophy, I believe it is far more likely than not that she will rely on a set of political views to guide her decisions rather than a strict construction of the Constitution. After many weeks of public debate, hearings and discussion, I cannot escape the conclusion that this nomination would only perpetuate judicial activism on the Nation's highest Court. I opposed the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor on that basis, and I will oppose Ms. Kagan's confirmation on those grounds also. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the discussion I was hearing. I would also like to draw attention to an issue that I think is about the most important to our Nation. We recently won a major trade case against the European Union and their subsidization of Airbus.

This is an effort by the European Union, over a period of 30 years, to buy their way into the large commercial aviation marketplace. They did so. They did so successfully. They drove out two major U.S. competitors, McDonnell-Douglas, Lockheed-Martin, drove them out completely. They do not even make those big jet airliners

anymore, and they had Boeing on the ropes.

Airbus took more than half the market share globally in the large airliner business. The U.S. Trade Representative's office, over a couple different administrations, pursued Airbus's subsidization. We just won this case, a multibillion dollar trade subsidy case that we won against the Europeans and their subsidization of Airbus, taking market share in the large commercial airliner business in an illegal fashion, illegally subsidized.

Now we will go into the damage and remedy phase. But we won the case, and it is a massive case. The reason I am raising this to my colleagues, my colleagues all know about, is a similar setting is starting in the small aircraft market, general aviation market. It is starting in the business jets, the small airplane business.

This is a U.S. homegrown business, it is centered in my State in Kansas. It is a great business. It provides connection throughout this country and increasingly throughout the world. There are 5,000 airports in the United States; only 500 of them have commercial service.

So the other 4,500, I guess you ride a bike to if you do not have a business jet or an airplane to get people there. Eighty-six percent of the passengers on those business jets or airplanes are mid-level sales, engineers. They make connections in between their various properties as the company operates. They make them much more efficient within that business.

But what is taking place today is this homegrown general aviation business in the United States that is a major exporter, recently cited by a major study by Brookings that this is a major export cluster, 40 percent export that we do in general aviation, the small business jet- airplane market is now under targeted attack by other countries to take this business away from the United States, the same way Airbus, subsidized by the European Union, took that market share away from the United States.

Instead of going after the big airliners, they are going after the small jets, the small airplanes. Several countries are lining up to do this. This is one of the major challenges facing general aviation domestically--foreign countries targeting this industry, which has high-wage, high-scale manufacturing sets of jobs. Various governments around the world are lining up and preparing programs with various means of support for their domestic aircraft industries, in research and development, sales and export financing, as well as certification of new aircraft, very similar to what took place in Airbus taking over that market share that they did.

In that situation, you had large companies fighting against a government operation, and they had, in some cases, deep enough pocketbooks to last, such as Boeing did. Lockheed-Martin, McDonnell- Douglas did not and were driven out of the field. My great fear in this targeting of general aviation, of the smaller business aircraft market, is that they are going to have countries behind them, companies in those countries are going to push forward and they are going to take the market share away and they are going to be aggressive and it is going to happen rapidly if we do not get out in front of it and stop these other countries from doing this subsidization.

It is absolutely critical to engage this competition now, that we stop it now, that we start the investigation of foreign governments' illegal subsidization in the general aviation market now, and that we get on top of this now, before it goes on 10, 20 years, as it did with Airbus, and we drive U.S. businesses out of the field.

One country in particular I wish to draw attention to, and one company. The country in particular is Brazil. It has made a strong commitment to expanding its presence in this market, the general aviation market, through Embraer, one of Brazil's largest exporters and employers. Embraer has made it a strategic focus and publicly stated its goal in 2005 to become ``a major player in the business aviation market by 2015.'' That was their statement in 2005, so they are 5 years away.

How have they done? After entering the business aviation market in 2002, Embraer has been involved in a massive program to develop aircraft for this market segment. They have experienced unbelievable growth and have rolled out a full product line of new jets, including the Phenom 100 and 300, the Legacy 600 and 650, and the Lineage 1000. Beyond the staggering numbers of models Embraer has introduced since 2002--in 8 years that number of product introduction--it is now responsible for around 14 percent of all global sales of business aircraft.

Again, this is a U.S. homegrown business. This business didn't exist outside of the United States before we started it many years ago. It is headquartered in my State in Wichita, the air capital of the world. What they have done since 2002 is get 14 percent of the market share from a start position, a cold start position. This is quite an unbelievable feat for a company that has only been manufacturing business aviation for a little over 7 years. That is phenomenal. It also, I suspect, was done illegally and subsidized by the government. At the same time, Embraer continues full speed ahead toward its goal of being a major player in the business aviation market.

U.S. manufacturers during this same period have had to delay or cancel new program starts due to challenging market conditions. I don't need to remind Members what has happened since 2008. It has been a horrific market condition. In my State, we have had huge job losses and sales in the business aviation field since 2008. We had a nice period going into 2007. We were up to 40 percent international sales. International sales helped us a lot because previously we sold 90, 95 percent of the market domestically, so that's a nice expansion in the international marketplace.

Since that period, 2007 moving forward, this has been a downward market. In that period, Embraer has moved up to 14 percent and introduced a whole new cross-section of planes. As someone who has seen similar signs in the past that were later proven to be the result of illegal subsidization of aircraft by the EU, this activity by Embraer and the Brazilian Government and growing market control does not seem possible without heavy and creative government support across the board. It does not seem possible to have done that in this market condition, in this atmosphere, in that short a period of time by a new startup company that hasn't been making these aircraft for more than 7 years. That was the similar sort of trajectory Airbus went on when it had heavy and creative government subsidization to go into a marketplace they had not been anywhere close to in the past. That's seven years, now 14 percent of the market share by Embraer, starting from a dead start. There is heavy illegal subsidization.

I urge the President to look into this matter through the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, the International Trade Commission, to start an investigation into what I believe is illegal subsidization. Let's get the factual setting established.

We now see what they have accomplished in this period, I believe, through illegal subsidization. We need to get the International Trade Commission and the U.S. Trade Representative's Office focused on what needs to take place; otherwise, what will happen is Embraer will continue to grow in its market presence, taking over more and more of the global and U.S. domestic market. It will drive weaker incumbents out of the field in the United States, as happened in the large aviation market. We will lose export share. It will encourage other entrants such as the Chinese to come into this marketplace, possibly the Japanese as well in subsidized ways, illegal government subsidization into this marketplace that has high-wage, high-skill manufacturing jobs that we should be doing in the United States and not allow to be stolen by foreign treasuries to other places around the world.

We have to do this and get in it before they do what Airbus and the EU did to the large market which is to drive Lockheed Martin and McDonnell Douglas out of the business. While we were sitting here saying: We think maybe there is a problem, there might be a problem, there was a huge problem, a huge illegal subsidization by the Europeans. But we didn't get on top of it until two major U.S. companies were completely driven out of the business. Let's not let this be repeated.

As my colleague from Kentucky loves to say: There is no education in the second kick of a mule. We have seen this play before. We have seen countries go after key market segments in the United States. If we are not aggressive in confronting it, it goes on until we do. I hope my colleagues will look at this. There are two actions we can take near term with the International Trade Commission, starting the investigation in this particular case with the U.S. Trade Representative's Office, starting to raise this issue, particularly with the Brazilians but also other countries. Now is the time to do it, not 5 years later after U.S. companies have been driven out of the business.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding the floor. I invite him to stay. I want to talk about a renewable energy standard we need to have in an energy piece of legislation. I know it is something he is interested in, and has been, and it is something I am interested in. I think it is one of these commonsense approaches that you can get bipartisan support built for if you do it in a sensible fashion that doesn't raise utility rates; and that is a key issue to watch here--not to raise utility rights.

I think if we have a robust enough--but not greedy--renewable energy standard that is prudent, workable, over a period of time, where companies can work into this, we can start moving forward on renewable energy in a sound economic fashion, and we can balance our energy needs with our environmental needs and our economic demands and not raise utility rates.

That is why I was hoping that the leader, when he introduced his energy bill, would put forward a renewable energy standard. He didn't call for that. I do. If we get an energy bill on the floor--which I hope we do--I will certainly be supporting a renewable energy standard the likes of which we passed on a bipartisan basis through the Energy Committee.

I am looking forward to supporting what we put forward in the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009, which was reported out of the committee on a strong bipartisan basis. There was a provision in it that called for a 15-percent renewable energy standard by 2021, and within that 15 percent was even allowed 11 percent by renewables and up to 4 percent by conservation, so there were some ways for groups and individuals to be able to work forward, building in some conservation but also renewable energy into the portfolio, such as renewable energy of wind, solar, biomass, or other means.

I have been advocating this, as has my colleague from North Dakota. It is something we have voted on recently in this body, as recently as 2005, when we looked at a 10-percent renewable energy standard. The differences in the conference prevented that from moving forward.

The amendment I would support on this bill that I hope the leader will reconsider and put forward in his base bill that he puts up on the floor is 15 percent, as I stated, by 2021. That is something that could have and would gain bipartisan support.

If we are serious about moving forward on reducing our dependency on foreign oil, from foreign sources, if we are serious about moving forward on environmental needs, this is a very sensible, pragmatic, prudent approach. It is one we can do. It is one we can accomplish. It is one that has passed this body before. We already know the votes are here to pass something like a modest renewable energy standard. That is why I am calling for this to be put forward in the leader's base bill. If not, I am supporting an amendment that would be put in this Energy bill should it come to the floor. I hope it does come to the floor. We need to address the energy needs of this country. We have a huge problem that has been going on for some time in the Gulf of Mexico. We have enormous energy needs in this country. We need to balance our energy needs with the environment and our economic abilities. We are in difficult economic shape now. We cannot put a load on the economy. We should not put any load on the economy. If we are wise and prudent about this, we can do these renewable energy standards and not put any load on the economy. I ask the leader to do that. I hope we can in moving this process forward. It is my hope that this will be included in any energy legislation that ultimately passes this body.

Mr. President, I ask my colleague from North Dakota for any comments he might have on a renewable energy portfolio in energy legislation.

Mr. President, I wanted to engage my colleague from North Dakota because there is a strong base of bipartisan support to do this, and I also believe there is a strong majority community across America that supports this. Don't get it out there so wild that it starts driving up utility rates. Nobody wants to do that, and everybody is opposed to pushing up utility rates. We don't want them to go up. They cannot go up. We cannot afford for them to go up in bad economic times, and I do not want it to happen in good economic times. But if we do this in a balanced approach where we say we are going to have a modest renewable electricity standard, a modest RES that people can work with--and in the bill in committee, we actually had an 11-percent energy standard--we could do 4 of the 15 by conservation, which is prudent as well. This is something we can support.

I know this is something which we could see a strong majority of the American public support. This is balanced and it makes sense and it moves us forward. That is why I hope that if we get into this Energy bill this week--it may not happen this week or it may not happen until September--that this is a piece that is in the bill, and it is something we can get done, and the vast majority of the public, if we do it wisely and prudently, will support this.

Yes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with my colleagues on the floor about jobs, job creation, opportunities that are there that are here now, and things we need to do.

I report to my colleagues the report came out yesterday from the Brookings Institute, citing exports and export opportunities that we have. They were pointing out that the President rightfully, in the State of the Union Message, called for a doubling of exports by the United States in the next 5 years. They were looking around, studying where is this possible for it to be able to happen. What are the possible communities to see this happen?

The Brookings Institute came out with a report yesterday that it released, and cited four metropolitan areas that doubled the real value of their exports between 2003 and 2008. One of them is Wichita, KS, and the aviation cluster--doubling its exports based primarily on aviation and the aviation industry. I congratulate Wichita and my State for what it has done to expand exports in essentially--a good portion of this being essentially a home-grown industry, general aviation. These are smaller aircraft, business aircraft, that travel to many of the airports throughout this country, and now airports throughout the world, that are not served by commercial aviation. Of the 5,000 airports nationwide, only 500 are served by common carriers that would be going out from different cities across their countries and our country. But that is only 10 percent of the airports that are connected that way. The rest have to be connected by business aviation, by products made in Wichita.

We make both large aircraft and small general aviation products--both of those--but particularly many of the general aviation products are made in my State, and this is an industry that is a home-grown one that we can grow and we can build exports on. Brookings cited to it yesterday. They pointed out that 40 percent now of the U.S. production of general aviation aircraft is going overseas.

Madam President, $150 billion of the U.S. economy is based on general aviation, the smaller business aircraft employing 1.2 million people in the United States.

The problem with this is that earlier this year the administration had attacked a lot of business aircraft and business aviation, saying this is not useful, squandering resources, when in fact it makes efficient use of resources and it is a home-grown business that is now exporting 40 percent of its product and is one of the leading clusters in the country to push exports which we need to have a lot more of, and export-related jobs.

I ask the administration and I personally invite the President to come to Wichita, KS, to see the business aviation, to see the general aviation business for himself, to see the fine products produced by Bombardier Learjet, Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft Corporation--those companies that are producing these excellent aircraft, and to help this business grow.

I also point out to my colleagues and to the administration that this is an industry that has been targeted by other countries for takeover. This is the same sort of thing that is starting to happen on general aviation that happened on the large-scale airliners when Airbus was built by government money in Europe to take on and build large airliners and take that business away from Boeing, McDonald-Douglass, Lockheed Corporation. Airbus succeeded in knocking two of those entrants out of the field, where they do not make large aircraft any longer and only Boeing is left and we recently won a large trade case against the European Union and Airbus for its heavy subsidization that it has had by the European Union to get to that marketplace and to steal market share from U.S. production. That is what has taken place in the large-scale aircraft business.

What is now setting up is many countries around the world are looking at getting into smaller aircraft, and mid-size aircraft, I believe, subsidizing their way into this marketplace to take those jobs and those opportunities to other countries around the world.

Embraer Air in Brazil is one that has had a fast expansion taking place in the small- and mid-size aircraft market, defying the market logic at the present time, that it has been a difficult marketplace. They have expanded the number of aircraft and they have expanded the number of different types of aircraft that they produce, all in a marketplace that has been under a great deal of difficulty in the last several years. I call on the administration to, No. 1, be supportive of this industry--I invite the President to come to Wichita--and, No. 2, to start looking at what other countries are doing to bid into this marketplace and to take these jobs from the United States by subsidizing these jobs with their foreign treasuries. That is illegal under the World Trade Organization. We need to be aggressive in our country in protecting this key export industry that is being targeted for attack by other countries around the world.

We will be putting forward more information on this as this develops further. I am going to be contacting the U.S. Trade Representative's office about looking into these practices of other countries. I meet regularly with people who lead various companies in the business aircraft marketplace and they are talking constantly about China looking at this, Brazil going into this market space--other countries lining up with different products to go after this home-grown, successful, now export-oriented business in the United States that connects the other 4,500 airports that do not have commercial service.

This is a big issue. I congratulate Wichita for its growth in exports, being one of the leading cities in the world--certainly in our country and in the world--in exports. I ask the administration to support this home-grown industry. I ask my colleagues to look at this as well.

I further point out when we look at military aircraft, certainly the big tanker contract that has been such a controversy around here, that we do not give those jobs to overseas companies such as Airbus that is bidding on the tanker contract but, rather, that those jobs be done here and not subsidized and bought by other countries around the world. Let's not let it happen in the large-scale commercial market. Let's not let it happen in the tanker business. Let's not let it happen in general aviation. These are high-wage, high-skill manufacturing jobs that we need in the United States, that we have in the United States, and we should not let them be stolen by practices overseas that are not legal under the World Trade Organization.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I regret that on July 12, 2010, I was unable to vote on the confirmation of Sharon Johnson Coleman, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District because my flight from Kansas City was delayed. I wish to address this vote, so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. I would have voted in favor of this confirmation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak about Senator Byrd, as many of my colleagues have, and make a few comments about an extraordinary individual. Just the sheer numbers are very impressive. He was married for 68 years, elected to 9 terms, had more than 20,000 days of service in the Senate, approaching 19,000 rollcall votes cast, and had a 97-percent attendance record.

Senator Byrd was the majority leader from 1977 to 1981, and again from 1987 to 1989. He was President pro tempore four different times when his party was in the majority. The Senator from West Virginia was known for his defense of the Constitution and the institutional prerogatives of the Senate. He was the author of five books, and he was an avid fiddler. The first place I ever saw Senator Byrd was playing the fiddle on television. Boy, he could play. It was impressive to see somebody of his stature playing an instrument so brilliantly.

In his biographical statement on his Web site, I found a statement that I want to expand and build off of. It says:

In every corner of West Virginia, the people of the

Mountain State know that there is one man on whom they can

always depend: U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd. He has always

remained true to his faith and his family, while working to

build a better future for his state and his country.

His remaining true to his faith and family was at the core of Senator Byrd and his longevity, and at the core of his service.

While he spoke often and wrote well about the institutional prerogatives of the Senate better than anybody in the history of this body, it is that his life centered around his core, remaining true to his faith and his family. He was married for 68 years to his spouse, Erma, who stayed by his side constantly, and of whom he would speak often.

Senator Byrd and I would speak about his faith on the floor frequently. He was a man of deep faith and a man of strong convictions, and that was his centerpiece. He would often speak on this floor about his faith.

I think what you saw in Senator Byrd in that statement about his faith and his family is a cultural requirement for the United States. This is a nation of strong faith, a nation that values family. At the core of this country is that cultural need and necessity, and the leaders of the country need to have at their core a strong bearing within them, and that is a part of their service. That was a big part of Senator Byrd's service. His comments reflected the way he lived. Often people say that the way you live speaks louder than any words you say. That is what I found with Senator Byrd. The way he lived was speaking louder than any words.

It was the Senator's commitment within his family and his willingness to live that and his faith that spoke louder than any of his words. When we would talk about these things, you could see that they were at the depth of his soul and being. Whether we agreed or disagreed on a number of things--and there were many disagreements I had with him on policy issues, no question about that--you could never challenge his core convictions. His faith and commitment to his family were things that were obvious by the way he lived. You could have this sort of gentlemanly debate about topics that would come up, but you could never question or challenge the character and heart and soul of that.

What I found most endearing was Senator Byrd's commitment to faith and family. He will be greatly missed in this body. His treatise on the Senate that he gave to all new Members--and to me as a new Member coming into the Senate--I started it and got through a portion, not all of it, but it was excellently written, well presented, and certainly a good education as to what we should do in preserving the constitutional integrity that the Founders intended for this body to be. He, of course, was the greatest defender of it.

Others have spoken more eloquently about Senator Byrd, but I don't think any eloquence could match the eloquence with which he lived his life--particularly toward his faith and his family. That is what we should recognize the most.

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

Mr. President, I regret that on June 28, 2010, I was unable to vote on the confirmation of Gary Scott Feinerman, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District because my flight from Kansas City was delayed. I wish to address this vote, so that the people of the great State of Kansas, who elected me to serve them as U.S. Senator, may know my position. I would have voted in favor of this confirmation.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague commenting about energy. There is a bipartisan energy bill that I hope the President discusses tomorrow. It came out of the Energy Committee on a bipartisan vote. It doesn't increase cap and trade.

I certainly agree with my colleague on nuclear power, although we have some disagreement about wind. We have some nice places in Kansas for wind energy generation. I talked with the operators of the Smoky Hills Wind Farm last week. It operates between 40 and 45 percent of the time--the highest operating unit in the world. This company is a global wind-producing company. It is a very nice operation. I am not saying you can power it all off of wind. I am a nuclear supporter myself.

I also believe we have nice places to do wind power and a nice generation capacity that is complementary to the rest of the energy grid in the United States. Kansas is the second windiest State in the country. There are many times I have been in Kansas and have wondered, who else could be windier? We have a lot of consistent wind. There are places we can produce wind power on a very advantageous basis for the rest of the country. It is my hope that we can have those on a complementary basis but that we don't do a cap-and-trade system; rather, that we go with the bipartisan bill that passed the Energy Committee.