[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.

                          ____________________