Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business, it adjourn until 9:45 a.m. today, Thursday, March 25; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 4872, as provided for under the previous order.

Mr. President, Senators should expect a series of rollcall votes in relation to amendments and motions to the reconciliation bill at approximately 9:45 a.m.

Under the agreement reached tonight, we expect to complete action on the bill around 2 o'clock tomorrow. There are other matters that need to be considered during tomorrow's session. Therefore, Senators should be prepared for additional votes upon disposition of the bill.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am very honored to have the chance to join my distinguished senior Senator Jack Reed on the floor of the Senate today to pay our respects to a friend of both of ours who has departed us. I will say a few words about our friend George Panichas myself and then my senior Senator will say a few words in conclusion.

It is a great honor for me to be here with Senator Reed. One of the bonds we have is our friendship with the Honorable George Panichas.

On March 2, in our Ocean State, the day of George Panichas's funeral, the flags across the State were at half mast in his honor. While George's family and friends are still in mourning, we wish to take this opportunity to share some of our memories in celebration of the life of a man who was one of Rhode Island's legends.

Representative George Panichas was many things: a husband, a father, a grandfather, a veteran, a public servant, an advocate, a loyal and active member of Rhode Island's Greek community, a successful businessman and, to so many of us, a trusted friend. Although George was small in physical stature, he will always be remembered as big, big, big in personality, heart, influence, and accomplishments.

Born in the city of Pawtucket, Representative Panichas was a lifelong resident of the great State of Rhode Island and a member of our country's ``greatest generation.'' A decorated Air Force veteran of World War II, George served as a tail gunner in the U.S. Air Force, completing 50 missions over enemy-occupied Europe at a time when not many men survived 50 missions. He received the Air Medal with four oak leaf clusters, three battle stars for service in the European theater, the Presidential Unit Citation with oak leaf cluster, and a personal citation from the commanding general of the 15th Air Force.

Representative Panichas was elected to the Rhode Island General Assembly representing a district in Pawtucket in 1970. He served until he retired in 1984. He was the first Greek American to hold State office in our State. Throughout Representative Panichas's tenure, he was known for speaking up with his powerful voice and for his influence in getting the job done.

This Chamber still remembers John O. Pastore, another distinguished

Rhode Island public servant, small in stature, large in voice and influence. George Panichas was very much in his mold.

Representative Panichas was a tireless advocate for Rhode Island's veterans. Thanks to him, today we have a beautiful Rhode Island Veterans Memorial Cemetery. Thousands of people visit the cemetery every year and witness firsthand George Panichas's work. He was responsible for its expansion and many of the improvements that happened on its grounds. The brave Rhode Islanders and their families who served our country so honorably will always have a special beautiful place to be remembered, due in large part to the work of this man.

Perhaps above anything else, Representative Panichas was widely known for his dedication to his beloved Greek heritage. Many years I have attended the Pawtucket Greek Festival with him, held at the Greek Orthodox Church of the Assumption. I will always remember how he knew virtually everybody in attendance and the affection and respect the entire community showed for him.

At his funeral, I returned to the Church of the Assumption for his wake, and I heard so many stories there from his family, friends, and colleagues of his unique character, his kindness, and his bold leadership.

It is with heavy hearts that we remember one of Rhode Island's legends today. But Representative Panichas's spirit will live on through his accomplishments and through his beloved family. I extend my deepest condolences to his loving wife Angela, to his two daughters, of whom he was so proud--Denise and Joan--to his loving and beloved son George, Jr., and the apple of his eye, his grandson George III, and, of course, the rest of the Panichas family. George was truly one of a kind, and he will be missed.

George Panichas once quoted the great Greek philosopher Aristotle in saying: You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honor.

Today we recall with respect and affection a man whose courage will long live in our hearts.

I yield the floor for my distinguished senior colleague.

As in executive session I ask unanimous consent that today at 3 p.m. the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 653, the nomination of O. Rogeriee Thompson to be a U.S. circuit judge for the First Circuit, and there be up to 30 minutes of debate with respect to the nomination with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Whitehouse and Sessions or their designees; with Senator Reed of Rhode Island controlling up to 5 minutes; that at 3:30 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table and any statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record as if read, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding for that unanimous consent.

Mr. President, the Senate is considering the nomination of O. Rogeriee Thompson to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. I join my distinguished senior colleague, Senator Jack Reed, in applauding President Obama's selection of this very talented nominee. Judge Thompson's nomination has been an uncontroversial one and for good reason: She is a dedicated public servant, a highly experienced and respected judge, and a credit to our home State of Rhode Island. I congratulate Judge Thompson on coming to this point in the process. I look forward to an uneventful confirmation vote in the next few moments.

I express to my colleagues my thorough confidence that she will have a distinguished career as a U.S. circuit court of appeals judge.

I also thank some of my colleagues. I am grateful to majority leader Harry Reid, to our chairman, Patrick Leahy, of the Judiciary Committee, and to Senators on the other side of the aisle, in particular Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Sessions, for clearing the path for us to vote on Judge Thompson's nomination today. I also am grateful that my senior Senator, Jack Reed, gave me the opportunity to assist him in identifying the best possible nominee to recommend to President Obama to serve on the first circuit. As my colleagues know, it has been a great honor to serve with Senator Reed since coming to the Senate. This experience with him was another great privilege for which I am deeply grateful.

After the Senate's action today, after a lifetime of achievement, Judge Thompson will make history as the first African American and only the second woman to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. This will not be the first barrier broken by Judge Thompson, as she was the first African-American woman on each of the Rhode Island courts on which she has served. These were great moments in the history of our State. Her arrival will be a wonderful addition in the history of the first circuit. Judge Thompson has given our State 21 years of distinguished judicial service, first as an associate judge on the Rhode Island district court and subsequently as an associate justice on the Rhode Island superior court.

Judge Thompson has long scrupulously adhered to the proper role of a judge, respecting the role of the legislature as the voice of the people, deciding cases based on the law and the facts, not prejudging any case but listening to every party before her, respecting precedent and limiting herself to the issues properly before the court. Her courtroom deservedly has come to be known as a place in which every party can expect a fair hearing. I know she will earn the same reputation for fairness and excellence as a judge on the first circuit.

I should add that Judge Thompson has also made great contributions to our home State of Rhode Island outside of the courtroom. She has chaired or been a member of important court committees that have improved the quality of justice in our State. She has given back to her alma mater, Brown University, by serving as a trustee of that great university. She also has provided mentoring to innumerable students, given her time to countless law

school programs, and served on the boards of valuable and important nonprofit groups such as the Rhode Island Children's Crusade for Higher Education, a board on which I was privileged to serve with Judge Thompson. Her willingness to give back to our Rhode Island community is characteristic of her entire family. Judge Thompson's husband, Bill Clifton, is a judge on the Rhode Island district court. Her brother-in- law, Bill's brother, Edward Clifton, is a judge on the Rhode Island superior court. It is a very judicial family.

I had the occasion to appear before Judge Clifton. He was the first judge when we began our Rhode Island drug court, when I was attorney general. I have had firsthand experience of his qualities as well. We in Rhode Island are very fortunate to be blessed by the service and excellence of this family. I am sure this is a very proud day for them all. I extend my best wishes and my congratulations.

I anticipate we will have a strong vote in favor of Judge Thompson. She passed without incident or opposition through the review of the Judiciary Committee. There were no questions raised about her at her hearing. The voice vote in her favor was unanimous. The track record to date is an indication of a likely resounding confirmation. I might add, if that happens, that is yet another evidence of how talented she is and how well she deserves this seat on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. It is an important circuit for our State. It is a very distinguished court. It has had very distinguished Rhode Islanders sit on it in the past. A friend of Senator Jack Reed's and mine, the honorable Bruce Selya, has served on that court with immense distinction for many years. So there is an important Rhode Island tradition on the first circuit.

I can assure all of my colleagues in the Senate that as a justice of this court, O. Rogeriee Thompson will discharge all of her duties with the greatest of distinction.

I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time be divided between the minority and majority.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination of Judge Thompson.

Madam President, I thank the Senator.

The last 2 years have seen the American economy on the brink of collapse, battered by an economic maelstrom not seen since the Great Depression and now slowly--too slowly--recovering its strength. President Obama's Recovery Act led the way, and we have seen its benefits over the last year with job losses slowing significantly. He inherited an economy losing, I think, 700,000 jobs a month, and it is now back to nearly break even.

An essential element of this recovery has been encouraging thriving export markets. Last week, President Obama laid out his plan to double exports in 5 years, an initiative which could create up to 2 million jobs. As the President said: ``In a time when millions of Americans are out of work, boosting our exports is a short-term imperative.''

But for international trade to function, our government must participate fully in international trade negotiations, advocating fair and open trading rules that allow American businesses to compete and export.

Yet a single Senator, the Republican Senator from Kentucky, has blocked the President's nominees for two key trade positions--nominees who cleared the committee with strong, positive votes. Michael Punke, nominated as Deputy Trade Representative to Geneva, and Islam Siddiqui, nominated to be Chief Agricultural Negotiator, deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

In this economic crisis, why in the world would a Senator hold up such important appointments for our exports and for our economy, hobbling this administration's ability to fully participate in international trade talks?

The Senator from Kentucky has told us why: to try to force U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to file a complaint regarding Canada's recently passed antismoking law. Yes, believe it or not, the Senator from Kentucky is blocking the appointment of critical U.S. international trade officials to try to force the administration to put pressure on Canada to change its antismoking law.

I am sure the tobacco industry is important in the Senator's home State, and protecting home State jobs is important. But hampering our ability to negotiate our trade agreements in this time of economic distress is not the way to do it. The Senator's hold is particularly ironic and unproductive, since trade officials, such as these nominees, are the ones charged with negotiating resolutions to trade issues such as the one that appears to motivate the Senator from Kentucky. Ambassador Kirk recently commented that the absence of these officials is having a significant impact and indicated the situation is causing some countries to question our commitment to serious trade talks. ``We would be greatly advantaged not only just from the manpower and intellectual strength these two individuals bring, but I think it would help us regain some of our credibility,'' is what Ambassador Kirk said.

Let's be clear. The Senator from Kentucky has said he does not have any objection to these nominees. He is only blocking the nominations as leverage against the President and Ambassador Kirk. That is pure obstructionism.

It is these kinds of political power plays--one Senator actually had 70 nominees on hold--that lead to such cynicism in the country about our ability to work together and get things done. When a Senator blocks basic governmental action--action that all agree is of national importance--for purely parochial and political reasons, the public rightly wonders what is going on.

If the Senator from Kentucky disagrees with the Canadian Legislature, fine, he should voice that disagreement publicly and try to persuade the President of the merits of his point of view. He is welcome to do that. Instead, he has chosen to add to the obstructionist tactics that are poisoning this Chamber and preventing the Government of the United States from doing its business. That may serve the immediate political goals of his party, but it is wrong for our country and it is wrong for all Americans who depend on an effective U.S. Government. I urge the Senator from Kentucky to release his holds.

I yield the floor back to Senator Warner from Virginia.

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

Mr. President, more than a year ago I came to the Senate floor to share stories I had heard from Rhode Islanders who are struggling in our broken health care system. Since then I have been here on many occasions continuing to share

those stories and continuing to urge Congress to get to work on legislation to transform our health care system so all Americans can receive the health care they deserve.

Over the past year, with my colleagues in the Senate on the HELP Committee, our colleagues on the Finance Committee--the many colleagues who were active in preparing this legislation and working on the Senate floor--we have worked through differences, ironed out details, and slowly but surely moved toward creating a reformed health care system that will lower costs, cover millions of the uninsured, and deliver the care we need when we need it.

Today, we stand on the brink, on the doorstep, just a few short steps away, from achieving this landmark reform. As we move forward to take those welcome final steps, let's not forget that the deliberate failure to act--as our Republican colleagues recommend--would leave millions of Americans mired in a status quo that consistently--consistently--fails them.

I recently heard from Valerie, a working mother in Warwick, who carried the health insurance coverage for her entire family until she lost her job. The double blow of losing her job and her insurance left Valerie and her husband with very few choices. The choice they faced was a difficult one. Here is what they decided: After paying for costly individual plans for their teenagers, they could not afford coverage for themselves. So they went ahead, covered their kids, and have left themselves exposed to the devastating financial consequences of getting sick while uninsured.

Here is what Valerie wrote to me:

Looking back on our lives, major life decisions have been

based upon the availability and affordability of health

insurance for our family. I have had to pass up job

opportunities and make other major sacrifices to ensure we

had affordable insurance. Now that isn't even possible.

Valerie is one of the 14,000 Americans who lose their health care coverage every day we do not act. Mr. President, 14,000 is a very big number, but it is just a number. Behind each one of those 14,000 people is a story like Valerie's and a family who is worried and anxious, perhaps even frightened.

For Emily, a resident of Barrington, the continuation of the status quo would prolong the endless runaround she and her husband have endured to get just one health insurance claim resolved.

Last March, Emily's husband required back surgery. The insurance company preapproved the coverage, assuring him the surgery would be paid for. With this assurance, Emily's husband went to the hospital and went through with the surgery.

Months later, however, the insurance company still had not paid. They began to ask for more information. Emily resubmitted lengthy paperwork, but she heard nothing back. Nine months have now passed--9 months--and the insurer has yet to pay the $17,000 charge for her husband's surgery.

Nationally, insurance company overhead has more than doubled in the past 6 years. It is up more than 100 percent in the past 6 years. It is now estimated to cost America $128 billion. What do you suppose they spent that money on when they doubled their overhead and their bureaucracy? More people to take cases such as Emily's and find more ways to deny and delay their payment.

If we do not change the status quo, there will be even more insurance bureaucracy, even more fighting to delay or deny claims, and even more people such as Emily and her husband who are on the short end of the stick when the insurance companies engage with them.

For Christine, a concerned mother in Providence, the status quo has left her worried sick about her son. Christine has always provided health insurance for her family, but when her son turned 23 years old he became ineligible for coverage under her insurance policy.

In this difficult economy, Christine's son has only been able to find part-time work, like so many other Americans, so many Rhode Islanders. Christine writes this:

It breaks my heart when he expresses to me that he feels

insecure and strange that he is not covered medically.

Christine prays that nothing goes wrong with her son that would require medical care, and asks me: ``What is he to do?''

Well, when this bill passes, Christine's son will have something to do. He will be able to stay on her family coverage until he turns 26.

These stories I have shared today--stories from anxious families of fear, uncertainty, and frustration--are the direct result of the rampant dysfunction in the broken status quo of our health care system. I know the Presiding Officer, who comes from Minnesota, sees this in his home State every day.

The legislation we passed in the Senate on Christmas Eve will begin to correct this rampant dysfunction. It will begin to make our system start to work for the American people and not support the insurance companies working against them.

To our Republican colleagues who seek to delay and obstruct this historic reform, I have to say we need to pass comprehensive health care reform so people like Valerie never have to make the choice between health insurance for herself and health insurance for her children. We need to pass comprehensive health care reform so that people such as Emily and her husband can't be denied care or denied payment or get the runaround from profit-driven insurance companies. We need to pass comprehensive health care reform so that children such as Christine's son can stay on their parents' insurance policies, particularly during this tough economy, until the age of 26, helping them get by during those exciting, challenging, tumultuous years when a young person gets out of college and starts to find their way in the workforce, those years between college and an established career.

These changes will make a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans. I hope all of my colleagues will hit the reset button on their opposition and will think of the Emilys and the Valeries and the Christines in their home States, the thousands of Americans whose lives will be made better in real and important ways by this reform. I urge them to join us in supporting this historic effort.

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

Mr. President, as I have traveled throughout Rhode Island, I have heard from countless constituents about the sacrifices they have made during these difficult economic times. Many of my constituents have adjusted to the economic climate by cutting back on extras and finding savings where they can.

For seniors living on a limited budget, however, simply cutting back is not an option. I have heard from seniors who have turned off the heat in their homes because oil prices are so high. I have heard from others who are splitting pills and skipping doses because they cannot afford to refill a prescription. These are seniors who have worked hard their whole lives, paid into the system, and believed that they would be able to grow old comfortably. Instead, many are barely scraping by on Social Security benefits that no longer cover their daily living expenses.

Last Wednesday, the Senate had the opportunity to provide some extra help for seniors, veterans, and individuals with disabilities who rely on Social Security. We voted on an amendment offered by Senator Sanders, which I cosponsored, that would have provided an extra $250 payment to Social Security beneficiaries. The payment would have been an extension of the financial assistance I successfully fought for as part of the economic recovery package last year, and these funds would plow right through into our economy to help further stimulate demand and economic recovery. Unfortunately, this year, the amendment failed to receive enough votes for passage.

Although a $250 payment may not sound like much to some, for those on a limited budget the extra financial assistance provides peace of mind amid skyrocketing health care and prescription drug costs. The payment would provide added relief for the millions of older Americans who, for the first time since 1975, did not receive a cost-of-living adjustment in their Social Security benefits. Without some extra help, these beneficiaries are hard-pressed to make ends meet.

Just ask Jackie, a North Smithfield resident, who has seen her health insurance premiums increase by double digits this past year and the cost of her prescription drugs continue to rise. At a time when every penny counts, Jackie says the winter months are particularly hard for her. When Jackie hears the oil truck drive by, she cringes knowing that the cost of heating her home is another bill she simply cannot afford.

I also heard from Edward, a senior living in Warren, who is worried how he will make ends meet without the increase in his Social Security benefit. In recent months, he is seen his car and home insurance increase by $200, and other daily living costs, such as heating oil, gas, and groceries, rise significantly. In these tough times, Edward could just use a little help. He writes, ``I just don't understand why Congress cannot do something to help seniors at least maintain a status quo.''

Linda, a Rhode Islander from Providence, survives on only $500 a month. Like so many older Americans, Linda takes multiple prescriptions every day. The out-of-pocket costs for her prescriptions add up, even on Medicare. Between her medical costs, food, heating, and other daily expenses, she can barely make ends meet. Linda would welcome any financial assistance she can get, so that she can save for copayments for visits to the doctor which she knows she will soon need. Linda says she is disappointed that the Senate does not realize how desperately seniors need added financial help.

Like Linda, I am disappointed by the vote this past Wednesday. My colleagues failed to act on an opportunity to help our seniors when they need it the most; at a time when just a little help would go a long way.

For Jackie, Edward, Linda, and seniors across our country facing similar challenges, I will continue fighting to assist older Americans during these difficult economic times. I urge my colleagues join me in standing by our Nation's seniors.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3354, and at the conclusion of my remarks that amendment No. 3354 be withdrawn.

Thank you, Madam President.

My amendment, cosponsored by Senators Schumer, Bingaman, and Merkley, would authorize a series of new programs designed to encourage energy efficiency in homes. I am offering this amendment--based on S. 1379, the Energy Efficiency in Housing Act--to the job creation bill we are debating today because of the enormous potential of green housing to grow the economy, create jobs, and, of course, save energy.

Clean energy is the next big global industry. According to the U.S. Green Building Council, buildings account for 39 percent of all energy consumption and 38 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. Clearly, the housing sector must be a vital part of our energy efficiency efforts.

Venture capitalists and companies from Google to General Electric have testified before the Senate that this revolution--the clean energy revolution--could be even bigger than the digital revolution. The countries at the forefront of this clean energy revolution will be the economic powerhouses of the next century. Right now, the United States is at risk of falling behind in the race to lead this new economy.

Of the top 10 solar companies in the world, only one is from the United States. Of the top 10 wind power companies in the world, only two are from the United States.

When President Obama met with Senate Democrats a few weeks ago, he told us:

China is not waiting, it is moving. Already the

anticipation is that they will lap us when it comes to clean

energy.

Well, we can do better than that. We are a country of innovators, a nation that has always sought to be on the cutting edge, always sought the new frontier. All we need is for the Congress to put the right policies in place to promote energy efficiency and encourage the growth of the green economy so our companies can compete head to head with their international competition.

My amendment is endorsed by over 35 groups, including Enterprise Community Partners, the Alliance for Healthy Homes, and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation. The U.S. Green Building Council has included it in its list of ``Top 10 Pieces of Green Building Legislation in the 111th Congress.''

These groups know that the provisions included in this legislation will boost the green housing sector in a number of different ways.

First, it would jump-start the market for green mortgages by directing HUD to develop incentives for buyers--such as reduced rates and greater lending ability--and by boosting the secondary green mortgage market.

Second, it would establish a revolving loan fund for States to carry out renewable energy activities, such as retrofits and incentives for green construction. It would also encourage the participation of community development organizations in our most hard-hit neighborhoods in the recession by authorizing a grant program that can be used to help those organizations train, educate, and support the workforce for these green energy, clean energy projects.

The final provision I will highlight would provide incentives for public housing entities to achieve substantial improvements in their own energy efficiency. I believe we can maximize energy efficiency savings when we can split the incentives between landlords and tenants. The landlords will take an interest in pursuing the clean energy initiatives because of the savings they can make from the upgrades, and the tenants can participate in the savings through their conservation efforts. It has to be joint to be at its most effective.

As we continue to debate ways to put Americans back to work, I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at the green housing sector and at my amendment. I think it merits our attention. I hope it will have my colleagues' support on an appropriate bill

in the near future--I hope--and I speak on it today to put a spotlight on it so I have that opportunity.

I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I would like to echo the remarks of my very distinguished colleague from Maryland, who I know feels so passionately about this and whose own State will suffer dire individual consequences as the failure of unemployment insurance and COBRA and other things begin to hit home in the personal lives of the people in Maryland, the people in my home State of Rhode Island, and people across this country.

With so many Americans struggling to pay their bills, why--why--did thousands of the worst off, including hundreds of Rhode Islanders, have to wake on Monday morning to find their unemployment benefits and COBRA subsidies had expired? Why are people being kicked out of these essential, humane, lifeline programs before the economic storm that put them in that predicament has passed? The answer is, we have failed to do what is right for the American public, in part, because one Republican has chosen this time of great despair for millions of Americans to make a political point--to make a political point about the deficit--by hurting hard-working Americans who are struggling to get by. It appears it is actually more than just one Republican. Others have come to the floor to support him.

But on the home front, the cost is high. Many Rhode Islanders, through no fault of their own, struggle to find work. For many of them, unemployment insurance and COBRA are the lifeline for their ability to support their families, to keep food on the table, and to keep the family covered by health care. This is no abstract issue. It has had a serious impact in Rhode Island. We are a State of just over 1 million. In that State of just over 1 million people, there are 75,000 people, at least, unemployed and looking for work. These are hard-working people, many of whom have worked all their lives, but because of the recession they struggle to find work.

Margaret from North Providence is 61 years old, and she is 6 months away from being eligible for Social Security. She is years from Medicare eligibility. She has now been unemployed for 18 months and her unemployment benefits are expiring. COBRA, for her, has run out as well, so her health care is at risk. She has never been in this situation before in her life and she is, quite understandably, scared of where our irresponsible action leaves her.

Gretchen from Cranston is a laid-off teacher who was receiving COBRA benefits. That helps her pay for her health care. Because of a single Republican obstruction--apparently supported by others--her premiums have increased from roughly $500 a month to over $2,000 a month. She wrote to me saying:

How horrifying that I should work hard all my life, paying

for my entire education, dedicate my career to helping

children in poverty and find that my own may be among them.

Gretchen did not expect to be in poverty. She expected that her COBRA benefits would continue. But no, we have cut those off.

Richard in Warren wrote to me asking for us to move quickly on COBRA. Richard's wife has cancer, so they have no choice but to pay for health care coverage. Since he lost his job, Richard has been paying $400 a month for their

health insurance, but the cost has tripled--tripled--with the expiration of COBRA subsidies. Richard should be able to worry about his family, to be able to help his wife through her cancer treatment. He should not have to worry about the political games being played in Washington and the skyrocketing cost he is looking at. He and his wife should be focusing on her care and her treatment. But no, sadly, obstruction and political point-scoring now come first for some of our colleagues.

Margaret, Gretchen, and Richard--and all those across the country who are facing similar situations--are wondering why they have to pay the price for Republicans to make this point about the deficit. Why them? When it was Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq, for which money was borrowed to fund them, where was the concern about the deficit then? For Halliburton's no-bid contracts, the deficit is no problem, evidently. When it was Part D's colossal handout to the pharmaceutical industry--borrowed money--where was the concern then about the deficit? Not when it is the big interests.

When it was the tax cuts for CEOs--big tax cuts for CEOs, for big bankers, for derivatives traders, for hedge fund managers--where then was the concern about the deficit when those tax cuts were passed unfunded?

When the Bush administration inherited from the last Democratic President a balanced budget predicted to yield a zero national debt during the course of the Bush administration--a zero national debt during the course of the Bush administration--and instead the Republicans left us with $12 trillion in national debt, where then was the concern about the deficit?

As one of my colleagues has said, this has been described as a point of principle. The way a principle is defined is that you always stand by it. If it is a sometime thing, it may be a lot of things; it may be an opinion, it may be a maneuver, it may even be an honestly held opinion, but it is not a principle if you only follow it selectively. If the only time you follow it is when struggling, working people are in the crosshairs. But when it is Haliburton's no-bid contracts, when it is tax cuts for CEOs and big bankers and fancy derivatives traders, and when it is the pharmaceutical industry, then it is all fine? That is not a principle. It may be a lot of things but it is no principle.

I urge my colleagues to put politics aside, to do what is right, and to help the millions of Americans who are so badly in need of a little help through this economic downturn that was no fault of their own-- hard-working people, trapped in this recession through no fault of their own. I implore my Republican colleagues to start working constructively with us to end this unemployment crisis, to put people back to work, and to help those who are in such dire circumstances now through no fault of their own. That is what we are sent here to do and that is what I will keep fighting for.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator. I very much appreciate the Senator from Illinois yielding for a question. If the Senator would not mind a series of questions, the first question has to do with, I guess I would say the sense with which we on this side of the aisle should receive the protestations of intense concern about the deficit that come from the other side of the aisle, and it relates back to when the previous Republican administration first took office.

As the Senator from Illinois mentioned, the last Democratic administration left an annual budget in surplus and a nation that had a $5 trillion

debt. But my recollection is that in addition to a nation in annual budget surplus, what President Clinton also left the Republican administration that followed was a budget trajectory projected by the nonpartisan professional Congressional Budget Office to eliminate the national debt of the United States of America. We would be a debt-free nation if the Democratic policies of President Clinton had been followed according to the nonpartisan, professional Congressional Budget Office. If I additionally recall, there were actually economic debates that were provoked by that, wondering whether it was actually a good idea for the Nation to be, for the first time since President Andrew Jackson, debt free.

So my question is, Is it not true that more than just an annual budget surplus was left to the Republicans by the Democrats last time, but what was left to them also was a budget trajectory that would have made this Nation debt free during President Bush's term had he extended those Democratic policies?

The question I was asking is, Is it not fair to ascribe to that Republican administration and its policies the responsibility for more than just the difference between $5 trillion and $12 trillion? Because if those policies hadn't changed, according to the nonpartisan, neutral, professional Congressional Budget Office, during the term of President Bush, we would have actually been a debt- free nation and, therefore, responsibility for the entire Federal debt that was inherited by President Obama could fairly be said to be the responsibility of the policies from the other side of the aisle.

In evaluating this concern about the deficit, we have just determined that the policies of the other side of the aisle contributed to virtually all the national debt we have inherited. Then let's look to the situation now because I think we understand we have to fix this deficit problem.

The distinguished Senator from Illinois earlier mentioned a vehicle for trying to do this, which was the establishment of a statutory deficit commission. My recollection is, the votes were inadequate for that, in significant part because on the Republican side of the aisle, seven of our colleagues whose names were on that plan as cosponsors of it voted against the bill that they had cosponsored for a mechanism that would potentially, at least, have provided a vehicle for resolving some of our deficit concerns.

My question is, Is that also the recollection of the Senator from Illinois? And how, in the light of this debate about the budget deficit and the fact that the budget deficit is so important, it is worth forcing honest, hard-working--when they can find work--Americans into their cars to sleep, as the Senator from Illinois has said, out of their homes, into penury. Why is it not important enough for our friends on the other side to support legislation of which they were cosponsors, and what was the motivation for that?

Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Senator from Kentucky, if I may ask my final question. If we have established that it was the Bush administration and Republican policies that created virtually all the national debt we now carry, and if we have established that when the mechanism that many believe would be the best vehicle to address the deficit was abandoned by our friends on the other side in significant measure, even those who had cosponsored it, thus preventing it from passing, what am I supposed to tell Carol Thomasian from North Providence? She is unemployed. She is a Rhode Islander. She has worked hard all her life. She went to work first as a teenager. She eventually got married. She started a family. She got a college degree to increase her earning potential. She bought a home. Her family lived in the home. She did everything right, pursuing the American dream.

Two years ago, when the Rhode Island economy collapsed--and it collapsed in Rhode Island sooner than in other States; we have been in a recession for a long time now--she was laid off from her job as a construction project manager, and she hasn't been able to find work since. She is struggling to keep her family together. She is a single mom now. She is raising a 12-year-old son and a 15-year-old daughter. She has all those responsibilities of teenager parenting. She is also

trying to care for her disabled mother. She has a bachelor's degree in business administration. She has an associate's degree in architecture. She is a capable, trained, hard-working woman. Because she is out of work, her car has been repossessed, making it so much more difficult to try to find work, and it is unemployment insurance that is keeping her family together. This will cut 309 Rhode Islanders in our small State right off, in another few months it will cut up to 1,500 people right off.

How am I supposed to explain to them this principle that they need to suffer because of our budget deficit, with a party that is forcing that suffering on them and that did more to run up our national deficit than ever and that has obstructed the vehicle that would have started the work to fix the deficit and is absolutely silent about the deficit when millionaires and multimillionaires and billionaires are given tax breaks? How can I explain that? What do I tell her?

I was presiding during the time that my friend, Senator Corker, was speaking. I did not have the chance to respond. But I want to assure him, through the Chair and through this question, that as the distinguished Senator from Missouri has just said, this was not planned on our side, at least not by me. I came for the votes.

The only surprise tonight was my surprise that a Senator was going to stop our unemployment insurance program. It never crossed my mind, until it just happened tonight, that was within the realm of possibility. I have 75,000 people unemployed in my small State of Rhode Island. We are at 13 percent unemployment.

So when I discovered, as a surprise tonight at these votes, that this was going to happen, like Senator Durbin, I could not just walk away from this Chamber. No way. No way.

But it was not as part of a planned surprise. The person in my life who was surprised as to what happened tonight was me. Frankly, I am still surprised, and I am surprised this has not resolved itself during the course of this discussion.

I am surprised that the 75,000 people in Rhode Island and over 1 million people in this country, who are going to wake up to the worry and concern and extra anxiety that Senator Sanders spoke about, are going to have to face that. I think it is unfortunate. But it is not because of a surprise attack by me. It is because I am responding to a surprise to something that I think is very unfortunate and extraordinarily painful for tens of thousands of regular working people who did nothing wrong but cannot find work in this economy in my home State.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak just briefly about today's vote. Today, this body, in a rare but very welcome moment of at least partial bipartisanship, voted to pass Leader Reid's jobs bill. While that bill does not include every provision I would like to see, it is certainly an important step, and I commend my colleagues from both parties for supporting these provisions to put people back to work.

As a Senator from Rhode Island, which currently faces one of the highest unemployment rates in the Nation, at near 13 percent--I know the help contained in this bill, which builds on the programs we passed last year in the Recovery Act, cannot come soon enough. I hope the vote is a watershed.

Over the past few months, I have heard from hundreds of Rhode Islanders who are struggling just to find work. I have heard from Carole in North Providence, RI, who had worked all her life but was laid off 2 years ago from her position as a construction project manager. Carole has a bachelor's degree in business administration and an associate's degree in architecture and she has plenty of experience as a construction project manager. But for 2 years, she has been unable to find any work--talented, hard working, and unemployed.

I also heard from Nathaniel in Coventry, RI, who recently graduated from law school. That is a wonderful achievement and is ordinarily a benchmark that kids pass through on the way to success--certainly to employment. But Nathaniel is carrying $100,000 in student loans and cannot find a job.

I heard from Brian in Saunderstown, an unemployed construction worker who has been unable to find a job for more than a year. He has been receiving unemployment benefits, but he is justifiably concerned that those, too, might soon run out. He loves to work. He doesn't want to be on unemployment. But right now, in this economy, there is no other option for Brian and for his family.

Leader Reid's jobs bill--the HIRE Act--will help put Rhode Islanders back to work. The bill provides a payroll tax holiday for businesses to encourage hiring, increased cashflow for small businesses that can be used for investments and payroll expansion, and an expansion of the Build America Bonds program to subsidize and encourage local infrastructure projects. In addition, the HIRE Act extends Federal highway funding through the end of the year, which will make a $225 million difference for Rhode Island alone in 2010.

This legislation will be a big help for my home State, but it is only a first step toward restoring economic growth. It is certainly not the last step we need to take in this work session. As I said, I hope the vote yesterday and today is a watershed. Outside in Washington, the heavy snows of February are melting away. Perhaps--just perhaps--the blockade that has stifled the Senate is melting away a little also.

We must now act to extend unemployment insurance and COBRA subsidies to make sure unemployed workers, such as Brian, and their families continue to be able to pay their bills and to maintain their family health insurance coverage. I hope we will soon thereafter turn to new investments in our failing transportation, water, and school infrastructure.

We had a hearing in the Budget Committee this morning with Transportation Secretary LaHood, and he agreed very strongly that where you have decrepit infrastructure--and everyone knows the United States of America has an enormous deficit of decrepit infrastructure--we are going to need to repair that sooner or later.

If we need to repair it sooner or later, why not do it now, while we need the jobs? If we need to repair it sooner or later, repairing it now does not add anything to our Nation's long-term liabilities. Indeed, under the old Yankee principle that a stitch in time saves nine, under the commonsense principle that when you get to maintenance and repair earlier rather than later, it costs less to do the maintenance and repair, there is actually a very strong case to be made that there are net savings from moving the repair of our decrepit infrastructure forward. So it is really a win-win, as Secretary LaHood acknowledged.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues as we go forward past today's watershed votes and into the following votes to help restore our economy and meet the needs of Carole and Nathaniel and Brian and millions of Americans who are unemployed and need help now.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, bad things can bring out the best in people, and I rise today to speak about our response to the earthquake that devastated Haiti last month and, in particular, about the compassionate efforts that Rhode Islanders have made to help those who suffered through this tragedy.

The 7.0 scale magnitude earthquake that struck Haiti on January 12, 2010, is the first great natural disaster of the new decade. Even before the quake struck, the small island nation of Haiti faced significant challenges as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.

Haiti has been wracked by years of political strife and the constant threat of hurricanes and tropical storms. This most recent catastrophe has led to, for us, almost unimaginable suffering on the part of the people of Haiti. On February 3, Haiti's Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive announced that over 200,000 people had been confirmed dead. The U.N. has estimated that over 3 million people have been directly affected by the disaster. In the capital of Port-au-Prince alone, over 700,000 people have been displaced, with over 480,000 departing the city altogether.

Even before the quake, many Rhode Islanders were helping down in Haiti. One constituent, Natalhie Gooding, a CPA from Warwick, was down there volunteering her time at an orphanage for young Haitian girls in Port-au-Prince. She was there when the quake hit. Days went by before her husband Michael and her children were able to communicate with her. As people with families around us--I know the distinguished Presiding Officer and I certainly can share the intense concern that family must have gone through hearing the news coming out of Haiti for hours and for days and knowing that their wife and their mom was down in the middle of that and not hearing from her. As my colleagues can imagine, it was a traumatic experience. Fortunately, as it turned out, Natalhie was safe and she is now back in Rhode Island with her family. But as I acknowledge our relief efforts after the quake, I also wish to acknowledge and commend all of the volunteers from Rhode Island and elsewhere who were so generously helping in Haiti even before the earthquake struck.

The response of the United States to this tragedy has been remarkable. In the weeks since the earthquake, the United States has provided over $439 million in emergency humanitarian assistance. The Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Defense, and other government entities have all contributed to this effort. Water distribution, sanitation, and hygiene programs, food assistance, logistical support, provisions for shelter, and essential medical services have all been top priorities. The United States military has sent aircraft and ships to Haiti, including the USNS Comfort hospital ship and the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. These vessels are providing medical treatment facilities and humanitarian assistance. In addition, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit and the

Army's 82nd Airborne Division have contributed 5,500 troops to distribute humanitarian aid and provide search, rescue, and security support.

We have also seen extraordinary generosity from the American people, from the millions of dollars individuals and businesses have donated to help the victims of the quake to the volunteers who have selflessly traveled to Haiti to lend their valued expertise. Americans, with our spirit of generosity, have tried to help in any way they possibly can.

The outpouring of support in my State of Rhode Island for those affected by this catastrophe has been overwhelming. Many Rhode Islanders have generously donated to organizations to give whatever they can to the relief of this devastated country. At the Blessed Sacrament School in Providence, a school some of whose students have family members and loved ones in Haiti, the 270-plus students of this small school, pre-K to 8th grade, raised over $1,680 for the Red Cross in a single day. Students and parents at the Frenchtown Elementary School in East Greenwich raised close to $1,700 for the Save the Children relief organization to help those in Haiti. At the St. Mary Academy Bay View in Riverside, fifth graders have produced handmade yarn dolls which they are selling to raise money for the victims of the earthquake.

This month, students of the University of Rhode Island launched a ``URI Helping Haiti Campaign'' with the goal of raising $100,000 for Plan USA, a Rhode Island-headquartered relief organization that provides direct humanitarian assistance to 1.5 million children in 49 countries across the globe, including, of course, Haiti.

Ten members of the Rhode Island National Guard's 143rd Airlift Wing flew to Haiti in January to assist in the relief efforts. The 143rd's latest humanitarian mission before this was in New Orleans assisting in the aftermath of one of our own country's greatest natural disasters, Hurricane Katrina. This time they flew to Haiti to provide medical transportation and evacuation assistance.

In January, even the Rhode Island Democratic and Republican parties put politics aside and came together to host a joint fundraiser to benefit the humanitarian relief efforts led by the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund.

Rhode Island doctors such as Christopher Born, Sachita Shah, Stephen Sullivan, and Helena Taylor, of Rhode Island Hospital, traveled to Haiti in the days after the earthquake to provide critical medical services to those injured. These doctors lacked the medical equipment there that we here take for granted and they were also forced to use rudimentary medical procedures to treat the numerous patients who had lined up for assistance. But they did it, and they made a difference.

These stories represent only a small fraction of the generosity that Rhode Islanders and the American people have exhibited in the weeks following the earthquake. It is truly inspiring how Americans have joined together to help the people of Haiti in this time of need. I know that the world is watching this example of America's generosity, good will, and professionalism. I am proud of the many contributions that came from my small State.

The thoughts and prayers of Rhode Islanders and indeed all Americans will continue to be with those who have suffered and are still suffering in this catastrophe as the recovery and rebuilding begins to take shape. I know the generosity and the good work will continue.

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