[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1962-S1966]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 493, which the clerk will report.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 493) to reauthorize and improve the SBIR and
STTR programs, and for other purposes.
Pending:
McConnell amendment No. 183, to prohibit the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any
regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking
into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to
address climate change.
Vitter amendment No. 178, to require the Federal Government
to sell off unused Federal real property.
Inhofe (for Johanns) amendment No. 161, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the expansion of
information reporting requirements to payments made to
corporations, payments for property and other gross proceeds,
and rental property expense payments.
Cornyn amendment No. 186, to establish a bipartisan
commission for the purpose of improving oversight and
eliminating wasteful government spending.
Paul amendment No. 199, to cut $200,000,000,000 in spending
in fiscal year 2011.
Sanders amendment No. 207, to establish a point of order
against any efforts to reduce benefits paid to Social
Security recipients, raise the retirement age, or create
private retirement accounts under title II of the Social
Security Act.
Hutchison amendment No. 197, to delay the implementation of
the health reform law in the United States until there is
final resolution in pending lawsuits.
Coburn amendment No. 184, to provide a list of programs
administered by every Federal department and agency.
Pryor amendment No. 229, to establish the Patriot Express
Loan Program under which the Small Business Administration
may make loans to members of the military community wanting
to start or expand small business concerns.
Landrieu amendment No. 244 (to amendment No. 183), to
change the enactment date.
Motion to Commit with Amendment No. 276
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I have a motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] moves to commit the
bill, S. 493, to the Committee on Foreign Relations with
instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment
numbered 276.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
amendment no. 276
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
It is the sense of the Senate, that ``The President does
not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally
authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the
nation''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, we are engaged in a third war at a time
when our country is struggling under an enormous debt, at a time when
we are engaged in two wars. Historically, our country has fought war by
asking for congressional authority. This was true in Iraq. This was
true in Afghanistan. The President came to Congress, and there was a
vote on use of force prior to him engaging in force.
Some say: Well, this is no big deal; the President should be able to
fight war whenever he wants to fight war. I beg to differ, and our
Founding Fathers begged to differ. Madison said that the Constitution
supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch
most prone to war and most interested in it. Therefore, the
Constitution has, with studied care, invested the power to declare war
in the Congress.
I think this is an incredibly important debate. When we talk about
sending our young men and women into harm's way, into another war, the
fact that we would have a President send us to war without any debate--
your people's representatives have had absolutely no debate, and we are
now involved in a third war.
The language of my resolution is not unfamiliar to many. The language
of this resolution is the President's words.
In 2007, Barack Obama said:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that
does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the
nation.
This was very clear, what the President said. I agree with what
Candidate Barack Obama said. We should not go to war without
congressional authority. These are the checks and balances that give
you a say, that give the people of America a say through their
representatives. This allows us to say when we go to war through our
Congress, not through one individual but through 535 individuals whom
you elect.
I think the decision to go to war is such an important one that we
should not leave it up to one person. Our Founding Fathers agreed with
this.
In the 1970s, after Vietnam, we voted on something called the War
Powers Act. We did give the President the right to go to war in certain
circumstances. These circumstances were, one, if Congress had declared
war; two, if Congress had authorized the use of military force, or
three, if there was imminent danger to our country. I think all of us
recognize that. If we were in imminent danger of attack, we would allow
the President some latitude, but we would expect very quickly for him
to come to Congress and ask for permission.
In this instance, even the Secretary of Defense has said that Libya
is not in our national interest. There is no threat to our national
security. Yet we are now involved in a third war. We have already spent
$600 million in the first 3 days of this war. There has been no
constitutional authority given to the President to be committing troops
to this war.
This is such an important constitutional principle that, while I am
new here in the Senate, I am appalled that the Senate has abdicated its
responsibility, that the Senate has chosen not to act and to allow this
power to gravitate to the President. I think that the precedent of
allowing a President to continue to act or to initiate war without
congressional review, without congressional votes, without the
representatives of the people having any say, is a real problem.
There was an article this morning in the Washington Times by GEN Mark
Kimmitt. In that, he says that there is a climate of cognitive
dissonance surrounding the discussion as the military objectives seem
detached from U.S. policy.
The lack of connectivity between the use of force and
campaign objectives, the subordination of the military to a
nondecisive purpose, turns decades of policy on the use of
force on its head.
This is from General Kimmitt this morning:
Vital national interests are not threatened. . . . Nor have
sanctions failed or diplomacy been exhausted. . . . We are
putting the lives of our troops at risk in a nondecisive role
for a mission that does not meet the threshold of a vital or
national interest.
General Kimmitt goes on further:
For a military carrying the burden of three wars on its
back for the foreseeable future, a policy of more frequent
intervention and suboptimal use of force as an instrument of
diplomacy is a mistake.
I come from a State--Kentucky--that has two military bases. I see our
young men and women going to war, and I worry about their families and
themselves engaged in two wars. Some of these young men and woman have
been going to war for 10 years now. And the President now is going to
engage us in a third war without any consultation, without any voting
in Congress, and without any congressional authority.
[[Page S1963]]
I believe this is a very serious breach of our Constitution. It is
something we should not let happen lightly. It is something that we
should object strenuously to and that we should force a debate on in
this body. Many debates historically have happened here, many important
debates. And what is happening now is we are abdicating our duty and
allowing this to be made unilaterally by one individual. I think it is
a mistake, I think it is a travesty, and I think it should end.
There have been some questions about who these people are whom we
will be supporting in this new war. I think there is no question that
Qadhafi is a tyrant, an autocrat, and someone whom freedom-loving
people would despise. However, do we know who the rebels are?
During the 1980s, we supported the Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan.
Do you know who turned out to be the leader of the Freedom Fighters, or
one of the leaders? Osama bin Laden--now our mortal enemy--was
receiving money from the United States and support from the United
States for over a decade. In fact, the State Department's stated goal
in Afghanistan during the 1980s was ``radical jihad.'' We were in favor
of radical jihad because we thought the Islamic radicals hated the
Russians worse than us. They did until they got rid of the Russians,
and now they hate us as much or more.
I think we have to be very careful in going to war. I told my
constituents when I ran for office that the most important vote I would
ever take would be on sending their men and women, the boys and girls,
the young men and women in my State or anywhere else in the United
States, to war. To me, it is amazing--amazing--that we would do this so
lightly without any consideration by this august body, send our young
men and women to war without any congressional approval.
There have been some reports in the media about possible ties of al-
Qaida to the rebels. This morning in the Washington Post, a former
leader of Libya's al-Qaida affiliate said he thinks freelance jihadists
have joined the rebel forces. A NATO commander said that some of al-
Qaida and Hezbollah forces are fighting Qadhafi forces. Former jihadist
Noman Ben Otman estimates there are 1,000 jihadists in Libya. These are
the rebels.
We have to ask ourselves, when Qadhafi is gone, who will take his
place? A 2007 West Point study showed that 19 percent of foreign al-
Qaida fighters in Afghanistan hailed from Libya. Libya has been
supplying the second leading amount of jihadists to the war in
Afghanistan. Interestingly, where do these fighters go? Do the fighters
come back to Libya to haunt us? When Qadhafi is gone, will we now have
an al-Qaida-supported government in Libya?
But I think most important are not the practical aspects of going to
war, it is that we didn't follow the Constitution in going to war, and
we should have. The Constitution says very clearly that the power to
declare war is the power that was given to Congress and not to the
President. James Madison in the Federalist Papers was very explicit
that this was a power given to Congress and not to the President.
The President's own words are incredibly important here. The
hypocrisy is amazing. In 2007, the President said:
The President does not have the power under the
Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a
situation that does not involve stopping an actual or
imminent threat to the nation.
Yet here we have a President cavalierly taking us to war. He seems to
have had a lot of time to talk to people. He talked to the Arab League.
They had time to get together and vote on it. He talked to the U.N.
They had time to get together and vote on it. But he had utter
disregard and contempt for the most important body in the United States
that represents the people--the U.S. Congress. Utter contempt. He has
gone to NATO. He has gone to our allies. He has gone to the U.N. He has
gone to the Arab League. But he has not had one single minute of debate
in Congress.
To add insult to injury, he chose to go to war while in Brazil, while
Congress was not even in session. This really should not be the way we
operate as a constitutional republic.
I am saddened that no one here seems to stand up and say: Why in the
world would we let a President take us to war without any debate? Why
in the world, when we are involved in two wars, would we get involved
with a third war without having a debate in Congress?
This, to me, is a remarkable and really tragic set of events. I hope
that the Congress and the Senate in particular will see fit to pass
this motion which sends the bill back to committee with specific
instructions. The specific instructions are the President's words, and
I will be more than interested to see whether his supporters here in
the Senate will support the candidate Barack Obama or now the
hypocritical version that has become our President.
I think this is an important question beyond any question we will
address in this year. Our fiscal problems are really a tragic problem
we face now, but this really pales in comparison, to usurp the power of
war, to take that power upon himself unilaterally without any debate in
Congress.
I urge the passage of this motion to commit to the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in response to the Senator from
Kentucky, I would like to say that he is new to the Senate. I do not
question his sincerity when it comes to the enforcement of our
Constitution. I share his feelings about the responsibility of Congress
under that Constitution to declare war. I have held previous Presidents
of both political parties to that standard and believe that this
President should be held to that standard as well. I may regret some of
his characterizations of our President, but I will not go into that at
this moment. I will say the following:
Let's make the record clear about how we got into this situation and
why we got into the situation, which the President said the other
night. This was not a matter of waiting until Congress came back from
its vacation; it was a matter of innocent people being killed in Libya.
It was no mistake what Qadhafi was going to do. He said pointblank: I
am going to Benghazi. I am going house to house and room to room and
kill people, my own people.
It should not come as any surprise because he has a history of that,
not only killing his own people but killing those innocent passengers
on Pan Am 103. He is a ruthless, bloody dictator, so much so that the
Arab League of Nations broke precedent and called for Libya to be
suspended as long as Qadhafi was in charge. His own Arab League of
Nations suspended him. They then turned to the United Nations and said:
Please stop him from killing his own people.
Mr. PAUL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. When I finish my statement, I will be happy to yield.
They then said: Go to the United Nations and create the authority, an
international authority to stop him. This was done.
It was in the midst of all this that the President was leaving for
South America and Congress was leaving for a 1-week scheduled recess.
That is a fact. On the Friday, which is now about 10 days ago, before
we left, the President had a conference call and invited all members of
the leadership, Democratic and Republican, House and Senate, to listen
to a briefing from the Situation Room about the exact military
situation we faced and invited questions and comments from all Members
of Congress who were part of that conversation. I was part of that
conversation. I listened to it carefully. It became clear to me that
the President had laid down certain conditions to U.S. involvement.
No. 1, the President said: No American ground troops.
No. 2, the President said: This is a war of short duration as far as
the United States is concerned; in his words, ``days,'' not weeks, and
he went on to say that the United States would use its unique
capabilities to help those allies of the United States who wanted to
stop Qadhafi's killing. He used the phrase ``unique capabilities''
several times in that conversation.
I wasn't sure what he meant. I learned later in press reports. The
United States used technology on the initial air invasion for the no-
fly zone that stopped the radar of the Libyans so our planes and the
planes of our allies could travel across Libya and stop their planes
and tanks without danger. So that was the commitment made by the
President.
What does the law say? The law passed by Congress over the veto of
[[Page S1964]]
President Nixon, the War Powers Act, requires the President to notify
Congress when he initiates this form of military action. Did he do it?
He did. As a matter of fact, the President submitted a notification to
Congress within 48 hours of the initiation of these operations
consistent with the War Powers Resolution. So to argue that the
President is circumventing Congress is not factual. He did exactly what
the law requires him to do.
If this President were planning a full-scale invasion such as we had
in Kuwait under President George Herbert Walker Bush, with a long
period of buildup--I insisted, and President Bush complied with, a
request to come to Congress for authorization. He did it. Credit should
be given to President Bush. But it was a different circumstance.
What the Senator from Kentucky is suggesting is that President Obama
should have waited until he could summon Congress back into session--
how many days would that be--waited until Congress deliberated and
voted before he took emergency action to protect our allies' planes and
our planes, to stop Qadhafi from killing people. I am all in favor of
constitutional powers, but I believe there are moments when a President
has to have the authority to exercise that kind of military decision
when he believes it is in the best interest of the United States.
I don't think it is hypocritical. I am sorry that word was used. I
think what the President has said is that he is trying to redefine the
role of the United States in the world, standing up for our values,
fighting for peace, trying to stop the carnage in Libya, without
committing tens of thousands of American soldiers for years at a time.
I happen to think that is a worthy foreign policy goal. I also believe
the ball is now in the court of Congress. It now is up to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee to
decide if they want to have hearings on this Libyan action, whether or
not we take action in response to the President's filing this notice
under the War Powers Resolution. But to argue that the President has
just ignored the Constitution or ignored the law ignores the facts. The
President filed the notification required by law under the War Powers
Act. Now the ball is in our court. Are we going to move forward? Will
we have hearings? Will we take action? It is up to Congress now. I
sincerely believe there should be hearings. I hope this matter is over
before we even have the requirement or necessity to have such hearings.
But at this moment in time, as I see it, the President has complied
with the law.
I am happy to yield to the Senator from Kentucky for a question.
Mr. PAUL. On December 7, 1941, we were attacked and the President
declared war. We had a session within 24 hours. On 9/11, we were
attacked by people coming from Afghanistan. We met within 3 days and
had a use of force authorization. I think there is a problem with sort
of saying it is OK to declare that the President can go to war after he
has already done it.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, with all the complaints from many people on
the different wars in which we are involved, President Bush did come to
ask for the authorization of force. We have had 2 to 3 weeks of this
issue. They had time to go to the U.N. They had time to go to the Arab
League. They had time to go to everyone. I think the Senator from
Illinois should be as insulted as I am that they never came to
Congress.
The War Powers Act has specific criteria that allows the President to
use force: a declared war, when he has use of authorization, or when we
are in imminent danger. Which one of those meets the War Powers Act
with regard to Libya?
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator is correct in his statement that not only
President George Herbert Walker Bush but also President George W. Bush
came to Congress and broke precedent. That had not happened in Korea or
Vietnam. We went back to what I considered to be the constitutional
standard. Congress deliberated on those wars and voted.
I will tell the Senator from Kentucky, since he is my friend and is
new here, it is one of the most compelling votes he will ever cast. I
hope he never faces it. But if he does, it is one of the votes that
will keep him up at night trying to think what is best for America and
what is best for the young men and women who may lose their lives in
the process.
In fairness to both Presidents Bush, they did come to Congress. The
lead-up to the invasion of Iraq went on for weeks if not months. The
same thing was true for Afghanistan. Remember, in the situation with
Afghanistan, after 9/11, we were here in this building when it
happened. We knew what 9/11 was about, and we responded accordingly.
The Senator from Kentucky has the right to express his point of view
and debate it on the Senate floor and the right to pursue the War
Powers Act which gives Congress the authority for hearings and a
decision. What I disagree with the Senator from Kentucky about is the
characterization that the President did not follow the law. He did
notify Congress. The circumstances moved so quickly with human life
hanging in the balance, the President made that decision and now stands
with the American people making a judgment as to whether it was the
proper decision to make.
At this point I would like to yield the floor to the Senator from
Kansas for the purpose of debate only, with the understanding that when
he has completed his debate, I will suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. PAUL. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
Mr. DURBIN. Fine.
Mr. PAUL. I know the word ``hypocritical'' is a strong word. I don't
use it lightly. But the words we are using in this resolution that we
will get a chance to vote on are the words from the President. The
President said: The President does not have power under the
Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation
that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the
Nation.
How does the Senator from Illinois square that with his actions?
Mr. DURBIN. That was the question raised by the President in his
address to the American people the night before last, as to whether it
is in the best interest of the United States to step forward with our
unique capability--in this case, our air power, as well as our
technology--to protect innocent human life. There are some who will
argue that he should not have done it, and we should have just waited
to see if Qadhafi would keep his word to kill all these innocent
people. I think the President made the right, humane decision.
Had we made a fraction of that decision in Rwanda, it might have
spared tens of thousands of people from dying. The same thing might
have happened in Darfur. I think the Presidents who were in power at
that time both personally regret the fact that we didn't do anything as
those genocides unfolded. President Obama did not want that to occur on
his watch and thought the United States, in a limited military
commitment, could help spare innocent people in Libya from this
carnage.
We can debate as to whether that is appropriate, and I am sure we
will. I know the Senator from Kentucky has his own beliefs on the
subject.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Moran, be
recognized to speak in debate only and that following his remarks, I
suggest the absence of a quorum and the clerk will call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kansas.
Financial Challenges
Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for
accommodating my ability to speak on the Senate floor this afternoon on
what I consider to be a very significant and important topic.
Our country is facing significant financial difficulties. In the
coming weeks, the United States will reach its $14.29 trillion limit
for borrowing. Unfortunately, this is the 11th time in the past decade
that Congress will vote on whether to allow the country to take on even
more debt. These financial challenges we face, if left unchecked, will
have a disastrous impact upon our country today and upon citizens in
the future.
For way too long members of both political parties have ignored this
growing fiscal crisis and have allowed
[[Page S1965]]
our country to live well beyond its means. Delaying difficult decisions
and simply increasing the debt ceiling once again should not be an
option. The time to correct our failures is now.
Officials from the Obama administration warn that the failure of
Congress to raise the legal debt limit would risk default. But the
bigger economic threat that confronts our country is the consequences
of allowing our country's pattern of spending and borrowing to continue
without a serious plan to reduce that debt. Our out-of-control debt is
slowing our economic growth and threatening the prosperity of future
generations who will have to pay for our irresponsibility.
In the next three decades our debt very well could grow to more than
three times the size of our entire economy. This level of government
spending is unsustainable and cannot continue. Our Congress is engaged
in a serious and significant debate now about a continuing resolution.
That resolution is the result of the failure of the past Congress to
pass a budget and appropriations bills to fill in the blanks of that
budget. In fact, we are now dealing with the next 6 months of spending,
the end of the fiscal year which ends September 30 of this year. We are
having an argument about the magnitude of the reductions of spending to
include in the final 6 months of this continuing resolution.
I certainly wish to participate in the debate. I admit it is an
important issue, but there is more significant issues yet to come.
While it is important how we resolve the next 6 months, it is even more
important we adopt a budget for the next fiscal year, 2012; that we
return to regular order and have an appropriations process in which we
can determine levels of spending within that budget, establish our
priorities, eliminate programs, decrease spending where appropriate,
and move this country to a balanced budget.
In addition to a CR for the next 6 months and to next year's budget
and appropriations process, there is looming the more serious
consequences of so-called mandatory spending which comprise 56 percent
of our entire budget. We have to get beyond the CR debate of today and
get to the spending problems of 2012 and beyond and to the issue of so-
called mandatory spending that consumes our budget and drives up debt
now and in the future.
We need to be responsible and quickly resolve the spending bill for
this year and move on to these issues that will determine the future of
our country, especially the economic future for citizens today and into
the future.
The President ought to consider in his budget--but he didn't--the
recommendations of his National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and
Reform. We have seen, once again, the failure of the budget as proposed
by this President to include any of those provisions that his own
commission recommended in getting us out of our financial difficulty.
It seems to me that often, at least throughout my lifetime, we have
heard the discussion here in Washington, DC--I, as an American citizen,
as an observer of the politics and the policies of our Nation's
capital, have heard year in and year out about the need to reduce
spending, to balance the books, to quit spending so much money, to be
more fiscally responsible. Our fiscal house has to be put in order.
Those are words I have heard throughout my entire adult life, and yet I
am fearful they have once again just become words.
We do not have the luxury of those words meaning nothing this time
around. I would suggest there are those who may observe the proceedings
of this Congress this year and say: Once again, there is a political
debate going on. It is rhetoric between Republicans and Democrats. It
is a battle between the House and the Senate, between the Congress and
the President, without recognizing this debate has serious consequences
to the American people today and into the future.
As I said earlier, spending beyond our means is no longer an option,
and the failure of us to address these issues in a responsible manner
means the standard of living American citizens enjoy today will be
diminished. It means a lower standard of living for every American
family. It means an increase in interest rates. It means a return of
inflation. It means an increase in our imbalance of payments. It means
our trade balance is exacerbated. It means we may follow the path of
other countries in the world today that have failed to address these
issues, and we will see the circumstances that many countries find
themselves in, in which their credit ratings have diminished and their
interest rates have risen.
If we fail to respond, if we fail to act as we should, if we let one
more time this issue to pass for somebody else to solve because it is
so difficult, we will reduce the opportunities the next generation of
Americans has to pursue the American dream.
This is not an academic or a political party discussion. It is not a
philosophical debate. It has true economic consequences to every
American. We are not immune from the laws of economics that face every
country, and by the failure to get our financial house in order and
borrowing under control, interest rates will rise, our creditors may
decide we are no longer creditworthy, and we will suffer the same
consequence that countries in our world today are suffering that
followed this path.
This is the most expected economic crisis in our lifetime, perhaps in
the history of our country. We know what is going to happen if we do
not act, and we would be acting so immorally and without responsibility
should we look the other way because the politics of this issue are too
difficult.
Americans deserve, are entitled to leadership in Washington, DC, to
confront these problems and not to push them off to the next generation
of Americans, and I am sorry to say that, in my view, to date the
President has provided little leadership on what I consider to be this
most important issue of my generation.
My interest in public service and politics is one that has lots of
beginnings, but what has me committed to public service today is a
belief that I and people in my generation--in fact, every American
citizen--have the responsibility to pass on to the next generation of
Americans the ability to pursue the American dream. Our failure to act
today, our failure--to simply raise the debt ceiling one more time--
means we will have abdicated our responsibilities and the burdens will
fall to those who follow us. We will have lacked the morality and the
courage necessary to do right.
Earlier this week, I informed the President, in correspondence to
President Obama on March 22, with these words:
Americans are looking for leadership in Washington to
confront the problems of today, not push them off on future
generations. To date, [Mr. President,] you have provided
little or no leadership on what I believe to be the most
important issue facing our nation--our national debt. With no
indication that your willingness to lead will change, I
[write] to inform you [, Mr. President,] I will vote ``no''
on your request to raise the debt ceiling.
I do that because I believe in the absence of serious and significant
spending reductions, in the absence of serious and significant reform
in the budget and spending process, in the absence of a constitutional
amendment that restricts our ability to spend money we do not have, in
the absence of statutory guidelines that tell us we cannot spend and
borrow ad infinitum, that our country's future is in grave danger. I do
this with a sense of responsibility to Americans today and a sense of
responsibility for Americans to come.
I ask the President to provide that leadership, to address the issues
of not only this continuing resolution and next year's spending level
and the so-called mandatory spending, but also to help us create an
economy in which growth can occur, in which business men and women make
decisions to employ new workers, and that the American people have the
opportunity, when they sit around the dining room table and discuss
their future, to know they have the chance to keep the job they have or
to find a job they do not have.
That will require the leadership of President Obama and Republicans
and Democrats in the House and Senate. In the absence of any indication
that leadership is going to be provided, and that we are going to be
serious in addressing our problems of today, and resolving them for the
future, I will vote ``no'' on extending the debt limit.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, as we continue to debate important
small business legislation, I rise
[[Page S1966]]
today to discuss an amendment to further support investment and job
creation in U.S. companies.
In particular, my amendment would bolster our domestic manufacturing
industry, which has historically been the engine of growth for the
American economy. The manufacturing economy has been especially
important in the industrial Northeast, including my State of Rhode
Island. From the Old Slater Mill in Pawtucket--one of the first water-
powered textile mills in the nation--to modern submarine production at
Quonset Point, the manufacturing sector has always been central to our
economy.
Sadly, as American companies have faced rising production costs and
increased--and often unfair--competition from foreign firms, U.S.
production has plummeted. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
the number of manufacturing jobs declined by almost a third over the
past decade from 17.2 million in 2000 to 11.7 million in 2010. This
decline has been felt most sharply in old manufacturing centers like
Rhode Island. In Rhode Island, the loss of manufacturing jobs over the
past decade has topped 44 percent. The decline of the manufacturing
sector is a primary reason why Rhode Island has had greater difficulty
than most states in recovering from the recent recession.
Over and over, I have travelled around Rhode Island to meet with
local manufacturers, listening to their frustrations and discussing
ideas to help their businesses grow. During these visits I have heard
one theme over and over again: unfair foreign competition is killing
domestic industries. One Pawtucket manufacturer told me that they
recently lost eight percent of their business to a Chinese competitor.
It is clear to me that if we want to keep manufacturing jobs in Rhode
Island, we need to level the playing field with foreign competitors.
My amendment would remove one incentive to move jobs offshore and
help to make competition fairer for companies struggling to keep their
factory doors open here in the United States. Based on the Offshoring
Prevention Act, cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Sanders, Boxer, Durbin,
Brown of Ohio, Harkin, Johnson, and Levin, my amendment would end a
costly tax incentive that rewards companies for shipping jobs overseas.
Under current law, an American company that manufactures goods in Rhode
Island or in the Presiding Officer's State must pay Federal income
taxes on profits in the year that the profits are earned. But if that
same company moves its factory to another country, however, it is
permitted to defer the payment of income taxes, and declare them in a
year that is more advantageous--for example, one in which the company
has offsetting losses.
It makes no sense that our Tax Code allows companies to delay paying
income taxes on profits made through overseas subsidiaries, and my bill
will put a stop to this practice for profits earned on manufactured
goods exported to the United States. To put it simply, we should not
reward companies for eliminating American jobs.
In addition to ending an incentive to ship jobs overseas, my
amendment would reduce the Federal deficit by $19.5 billion over the
next decade. At a time when Republicans are promoting painful cuts to
popular Federal programs to save similar amounts, these are savings we
cannot afford to pass up. If we are going to be serious and fair about
deficit reduction, we need to look at these corporate loopholes and
giveaways, not just at cuts to Head Start, NPR, and Planned Parenthood.
I hope that my colleagues will show their support for American jobs
and for deficit reduction by supporting my amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________