[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 5, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4319-S4326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SHARED SACRIFICE IN RESOLVING THE BUDGET DEFICIT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Continued
Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 93, S. 1323.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A motion to proceed to Calendar No. 93, S. 1323, a bill to
express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice in
resolving the budget deficit.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, there will be a vote at 5 p.m. today on a
motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to notify Senators of their
need of attendance in the Senate at this important time in our
country's history.
I would note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Audit of Department of Defense
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to extend some remarks I made on
the Senate floor on June 6. The report I was reporting on on June 6
evaluated audits produced by the Department of Defense Office of
Inspector General in fiscal year 2010. I called that report a report
card because that is exactly what it was. Each of the 113 unclassified
reports published in fiscal year 2010 was reviewed and evaluated and
graded in five categories. My report was produced by the Department of
Defense Office of Inspector General in fiscal year 2010. After each
report was graded individually, all the scores for each report in each
category were added up and averaged to create a composite score for all
113 reports.
Although 15 top-quality audits were highlighted in the report, the
overall score awarded to the 113 was basically D-minus. That is low, I
know. Maybe the score should have been a little higher. Clearly, none
reflected any of the reforms Inspector General Heddell, DOD, put in
place in December of 2010, as all were published well in advance of
that date.
My oversight staff read these reports as educated consumers. We
expected these reports to provide leverage in the monumental day-to-day
Department of Defense oversight task. We want them to provide assurance
that the Defense Department is spending taxpayers' money wisely. Some
reports did that but most did not.
This report, prepared by this Senator from Iowa, is sure of one
thing: The audits which are the subject of my report card are not
somehow exempt from oversight and public scrutiny. In other words,
these audits should just not sit on the shelf and collect dust; they
need, as well, to be put under the public microscope, especially when
they cost almost $1 million apiece to produce. Mr. President, $1
million for an audit report is a heck of a lot of money. So that is
exactly what we did in the report card--put these reports in the public
spotlight, and I will keep them there until I see sustained improvement
at the inspector general of the Department of Defense.
As the report states and as I explained in my speech on June 6, this
grading system was subjective and imperfect. However, as subjective and
inexact as it may be, I believe it provided a reasonable and rough
measure of audit quality.
Following my speech, Defense Department Inspector General Heddell
pounced on my report. He expressed strong opposition to the low score.
He complained that it did not adequately reflect $4.2 billion in what
he called ``achieved monetary benefits,'' identified in fiscal year
2010 reports.
To address IG Heddell's concerns, my staff asked the audit department
to prepare an information paper that linked the $4.2 billion in savings
to the audit where those savings were reported. That information was
provided to me on June 20. I call it a crosswalk. It takes me to the
exact page in each report where the savings were discussed. This
document listed $4.4 billion in identified potential monetary benefits
and collections of $4.2 billion.
After reviewing the crosswalk, I have concluded that Inspector
General Heddell had a legitimate gripe about my report card. He is
right. It should have included a section that addressed potential
savings. So I will address those issues right now, focusing on four
reports that contain almost all of the $4.2 billion in savings listed
in the collections column.
In grading these reports, we did not give sufficient credit for
potential savings and inefficiencies. They were a casualty of the
grading system for one simple reason: If the exact dollar amounts of
the alleged fraud and waste were not verified using primary source
accounting records--and using primary source accounting records is very
important--then they did not pop up on my oversight radar screen.
My staff is attempting to work with the audit office to develop a
mutually
[[Page S4320]]
agreed upon set of standards for grading audits. The purpose of these
discussions would be to create a grading process that would accurately
capture the true quality of all reports, including policy reviews that
uncover real savings and efficiency.
From the beginning, I have been very critical of the audit office for
producing far too many policy reviews and far too few hardcore contract
and payment audits. For the most part, the policy audits have no
measurable monetary impact whatsoever. However, I have learned recently
that at least a few are important for other reasons. I am told that
some of these reports are a real value in the work of our Armed
Services Committee here in the Senate. Contract and payment audits are
also very important and I would say most important. They go right to
the heart of the IG's core mission: to root out and deter fraud, waste,
and theft. If done right, they, too, can produce big payoffs. Those
audits earned top scores in my report card. I am not saying the audit
office should do nothing but contract and payment audits. What I am
saying is this: The current mix of audits creates a huge imbalance in
favor of policy reviews as opposed to monetary reviews. So a better
balance needs to be established by the Inspector General's Office.
That said, I have an admission to make to my colleagues. I finally
found a policy audit that I like. This report is entitled
``Recapitalization and Acquisition of Light Tactical Wheel Vehicles.''
That audit report is No. 2010-039, dated January 29, 2010. It
identified potential savings of $3.84 billion. That is 90 percent of
the savings uncovered in all the fiscal year 2010 audits.
In my report card, I gave this audit a low grade. This audit failed
to connect the dots on the money trail and verify dollar amounts using
primary source contracts and payment records, plus it took 16 months to
complete. When you add the 4 to 6 months of planning that often
precedes an audit start date, you are probably looking at 2 years to
complete the audit, and that is far too long. But this report had other
important qualities that were overlooked. It uncovered gross violation
of applicable procurement regulations, including the use of sole-source
contracting arrangements. It also determined that the proposed vehicle
might duplicate the capabilities of existing vehicles.
In the midst of this audit, for reasons that remain unclear, the
project manager decided to stop the program ``and put the $3.84 billion
in funding to better use in fiscal years 2010-2013.'' This language
suggests that all of the money was reallocated within Army accounts for
other purposes. Clearly, the audit may have helped to stop $3.84
billion in potential waste. That is excellent. But this does not
constitute savings in the classical sense, as all the money was shifted
to other Army projects. Waste could have happened in those other
projects as well.
It reminds me, while we are here in session in what normally would be
a recess and I am reporting that the inspector general found $3.84
billion in potential waste, now that they are trying to find trillions
to cut down on the budget deficit, it might be a time to look at the
Defense Department and stop the reprogramming of money. If it is going
to be saved, it ought to be saved, and that means it will cut down on
the deficit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator has used 10
minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to continue, if there is no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Using a modified grading system to reflect the good
quality of this audit, it would have earned a higher score were it not
for an excessively long completion time. In this particular case,
however, the impact of the audit was apparently felt while the audit
was still in progress, so the timeliness rule may not apply here and
probably should be set aside.
There are three other audits containing savings and inefficiencies
that I would like to discuss.
The next one is entitled ``Implementation of the Predator/Sky Warrior
Acquisition Decision Memorandum,'' No. 2010-082, dated September 10,
2010. The purpose of this audit was to determine whether the Air Force
and Army had complied with the Department of Defense directives and law
to combine the Predator and Sky Warrior drone programs. The Defense
Department estimated that $400 million could be saved by merging the
two programs.
While the audit was in progress, the Department of Defense pulled the
rug out from under the auditor. A new directive was issued stating that
the two programs did not have to be combined. To counter this move, the
auditors recommended administrative action against those who failed to
comply with the original directive. The Department of Defense
nonconcurred and tossed the auditors a bone. The Department of Defense
wiggled out of harm's way by offering to do a meaningless lessons-
learned exercise. In the end, the auditors caved in, agreeing that the
Department of Defense plan was responsive and backed off.
Despite what appeared to be an unsuccessful outcome, the Office of
Inspector General still claimed that this audit produced $60 million in
savings. The audit itself indicates that the $60 million was, in fact,
``reprogrammed to meet higher priority operations.'' That means it was
reallocated to other Department of Defense accounts and thus not saved.
Since this audit was all about an opportunity to save $400 million
and the Department of Defense balked, maybe these so-called savings
might be better characterized as lost savings. In my report card, this
audit earned low scores mainly because it failed to verify actual costs
of two drone contracts using primary source accounting records, and it
failed to assess the validity of the Department of Defense estimated
savings of $400 million. I am not convinced this audit deserves a
higher score, especially since it took 22\1/2\ months to complete, and
the recommendations, though initially tough, were watered down in the
end.
The last one I wish to report on is entitled ``Deferred Maintenance
and Carryover on the Army Abrams Tank,'' No. 2010-43, dated March 2,
2010. This report concluded that contrary to the Army's claim, depot
maintenance on M-1 tanks was not deferred in fiscal year 2008. All
planned overhauls were, in fact, completed, but a large sum of money
was left over. The Army requested and received a formal, written waiver
to carry over $346 million in unneeded and unused fiscal year 2008 M-1
maintenance funds for use in 2009 and beyond. The reason given was
inadequate capacity at the Lima, OH, tank plant. Without the waiver,
this money would have been canceled and lost.
The report concluded that the Army documents contained ``inaccurate,
misleading'' information that may have caused a violation of the
Antideficiency Act. It recommended that the waiver be rescinded and
$275 million in fiscal year 2008 money be canceled and reprogrammed or
reduced.
The Army appeared to agree with the recommendations to disclose the
$275 million carryover to Congress but did not concur with other
recommendations.
This report does not point to any real savings. This report probably
deserves higher scores except for the timeliness and strength of the
recommendations. It was untimely, taking 22 months to complete.
In addition, there were unresolved issues about the waiver document.
Did the official who signed the waiver know that the document may have
allegedly contained false and misleading information? And was he
questioned about its truthfulness? If so, the report should have
recommended that he be held accountable.
The last of four reports uncovered $2.2 million in purported savings,
but this one appears to be more about helping the Army spend--not
save--money.
It is entitled ``Controls Over Unliquidated Obligations for
Department of the Army Contracts,'' number 2010-073, dated July 19,
2010.
This report deserves high scores for hitting most of the dots on the
money trail, including verification of exact dollar amounts using
primary source accounting records. Such nitty gritty accounting work is
highly commendable.
Unfortunately, the objective of this audit appears to be
questionable. The report finds that sloppy Army accounting work ``could
increase the risk that funds are unavailable for other needs
[[Page S4321]]
because funds available for de-obligation are not identified in a
timely manner.'' Now what does that really mean?
It means the money in question is no longer needed and is at risk of
being ``lost'' because it is about to expire.
Having un-needed money lying around in the Pentagon is almost always
a recipe for more waste. In the Pentagon, there is no such thing as un-
needed money. Every dollar has a mission.
This report is all about managing money to make sure every cent is
spent before it expires. Avoiding the loss of appropriations is the
primary responsibility of the Army Comptroller or Chief Financial
Officer--not the IG.
In this scenario, the IG's primary focus should be to ensure that
``lost'' appropriations are not used illegally--or that un-needed
monies are not wasted by being shifted to another questionable project.
Money that is not needed should be reported to Congress and returned to
the Treasury.
Although this audit deserves high scores in several categories, its
long completion time--16 months--and questionable focus lowers its
overall score.
To summarize, there are two main problems with these four reports on
savings and collections. The fourth one I am not going to go into now
to save time, but I will include that for the Record. None was timely,
No. 1. No. 2, reported savings are unverified and elusive.
First, these four reports took an average of 19 months to complete.
Two took a total of 45 months, or almost 4 years, to finish. That does
not include the 4 to 6 months it takes, I am told, to get an audit
rolling. As I have said on other occasions, the power of top quality
audit work is greatly weakened by stale information.
Secondly, these four reports supposedly produced $4.2 billion in
collected savings. But all of that money appears to have been shifted
to other Department of Defense accounts and spent. To the best of my
knowledge, not one cent was saved or redeposited in the taxpayers' bank
account. Only in government could all the money be spent and still
claim savings.
What we are talking about here is lost savings that grew out of waste
that was thankfully discovered and avoided. Waste that is avoided
surely has monetary benefits.
In closing, I wish to share a simple observation with my colleagues.
For some reason, auditors in the Office of Inspector General show a
great reluctance to use the word ``waste''--w-a-s-t-e--in their
reports. That word rarely, if ever, appears in their audits. At the
same time, auditors seem overly eager to tout savings and efficiency.
Why would that be? Could it be that their superiors in the Pentagon
take a dim view of the word ``waste''?
Savings may be nothing more than the flip side of waste. Auditors
detect and verify potential waste and then convert it to potential
savings by proposing remedies to eliminate the waste. Maybe the
auditors need to start calling it what it is--call it waste--and then
talk about savings.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for such time as I shall consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Pilots' Bill of Rights
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first of all, we came back. We weren't
anticipating coming back from this recess that we were going to be on.
I can't help but think a lot of that was a result of the statements
President Obama made, criticizing the Senate for leaving at a time when
the debt was so bad when, in fact, I think that is a bum rap. We have a
serious problem I think we need to address and that is spending. All of
these things President Obama is doing right now to make everyone think
we are trying to address it--appointing committees and groups to get
together; having the Vice President head up this group and the other
group; and Republicans and Democrats meeting--all the President has to
do is quit spending.
I have been here for a few years and I remember during the Clinton
administration in 1995, I came down to this podium on the floor
complaining that President Clinton had come out with a new budget and
that budget was $1.5 trillion. I said, this is unbelievable. It is not
sustainable. We can't do it. That was $1.5 trillion to run this country
for a period of 1 year. Now this President has come up with three
budgets. Each one of the budgets is a multitrillion-dollar deficit
budget. The last one was $1.65 trillion. This is more than the total
amount of money it took to run the entire country. It is all in the
President's budget. It comes out initially $800 billion for stimulus
that didn't stimulate. This was something that--I don't know why--
either nobody cares or the American people aren't listening. It is very
simple. We have a problem because the President spends money as no one
else has in history. Here he has right now actually raised the debt--
from every President, George Washington to George W. Bush--yet he comes
out and says, What are we going to do about spending? The answer is to
quit spending.
I hope the American people remember this. This is not the reason,
frankly, why I am down here today. In spite of what we have been led to
believe in various publications, other things are going on.
There is one piece of legislation I will be introducing tomorrow. I
have been working on it for about 6 months, and I have talked to
people. We have caucuses in the Senate about every kind of concern. We
have an Army caucus, and we have an Air Force caucus. We have caucuses
on caucuses. One of the caucuses we have is a general aviation caucus.
I am particularly sensitive to this in that I have been flying
airplanes for over 50 years, and it is one where we are dealing with
single issue people.
Anyway, tomorrow, Wednesday, I am going to introduce legislation that
is going to be very important to people who are the single issue people
who fly airplanes. I know a lot of us don't even care. I have heard
people say they are all fat cats. I defy anyone to go up to Osh Kosh
once a year, the last weekend of every July, and see the hundreds of
thousands of people there who are not wealthy people, they are single
issue people. Many of them have made experimental airplanes in their
garages. This is something we have enjoyed for many years, and it is
something I have enjoyed. I think because of my involvement, I have
probably received more complaints and more requests from people out
there in the real world--pilots--over things that have happened when
the Federal Aviation Administration has cause to try to either revoke
their license or give them the fear of revocation.
Over the years, there have been several instances where I have passed
legislation to fix the system by which the FAA proceeds in these
enforcement actions. I can remember back in the year 2000. Probably yet
today the greatest single pilot, most gifted pilot in America is a guy
named Bob Hoover. Bob Hoover is up in years now. He is actually older
than I am. As am I, he is still flying airplanes. They did what is
called an emergency revocation on Bob Hoover. I never did find out what
allegedly he did wrong. But it was actually in the field where this
great pilot would take a twin engine Shrike up to 10,000 feet, come
down and roll right up where the crowd is. He does all of that with a
glass of water up there on his dash. He is one of these unbelievable
human beings.
Anyway, he came to me and said, What am I going to do? They have
taken away my livelihood. All of these airline pilots who make a living
flying airplanes could have a revocation. I passed a law. It took 2
years to do it--and it shouldn't have--so if something happens with a
pilot and he gets his license revoked, there is a process he can go
through that offers appeals and makes it a fair process. So I have been
dealing with this for a long period of time. I have to say this: With
any bureaucracy that has the power to take action against an
individual, it is our job in Congress to ensure there are appropriate
safeguards in place to prevent agency overreach. This bill provides
that. The bill does simply four things. Those out there who are pilots
will understand exactly what I am talking about. First, it requires in
an FAA enforcement action against a pilot, in a case where there is
enforcement action, the FAA has to grant to the pilot all the relevant
evidence, such as the air traffic communications
[[Page S4322]]
tapes, flight data, investigative reports, flight service station
communications, and other relevant air traffic data 30 days before any
action can proceed, an enforcement action against the pilot. That is a
matter of fairness. If a person is going to be accused of something, he
has to know what he is being accused of. This is currently not done. It
often leads to a pilot being grossly uninformed of his alleged
violation and recourse.
The same section of the bill requires the FAA to advise a pilot who
is the subject of an investigation relating to approval, denial,
suspension, modification, or revocation of an airman certificate of the
nature of the investigation, that an oral or written response to a
letter of investigation is not required, that no action can be taken by
the FAA against a pilot for declining to respond, that any response can
be used as evidence against the pilot, and that the FAA's investigative
report is available.
That sounds like a lot of talk. All we are saying is the pilot is
entitled to have all the information other people have. I will give a
good example. One of the things we know--and I have heard this all of
my 55 years of flying--is that when you talk to a controller--he can be
a controller at a control tower or anything else--that they have to
keep that recording and the pilot can have access to the recording. I
have always thought this was true until something happened to me and I
found out that isn't true. So this means that until we change it, that
is not going to happen.
Secondly, it clarifies ``statutory deference''--that is a legal
term--as it relates to the National Transportation Safety Board on
actions by the FAA. This is what happens. The FAA would do something,
and this could theoretically be appealed to the NTSB. The problem with
that is, the NTSB--the National Transportation Safety Board--has
routinely rubberstamped anything that comes from the FAA. It is called
statutory deference. So that decision has been able to take place in
the appeals process.
To give an example, in fiscal year 2010, there were 362 aviation
certificate appeals filed with the NTSB's Office of Administrative Law
Judges. The Board's judges held 61 hearings on these appeals and
reversed the FAA order only 5 times. Also during this time period there
were 40 petitions seeking review of FAA emergency determinations. Of
these, 6 were procedurally defective and were dismissed and on that
basis, and 10 were voluntarily withdrawn. The remaining 24 petitions
were considered on their merits with only 1--1--being granted out of 23
being denied. So we know this is a serious problem.
What this does is not only clean up statutory deference, but it does
a second thing. It allows an airman at his own discretion to be able to
appeal to the Federal District Court.
The third thing the bill does is require that the FAA undertake a
notice to airmen. This is kind of complicated. But a notice to airmen
is called a NOTAM. A NOTAM is something they are supposed to involve
the people in--the pilots flying--so if they are going to go to a
certain airport, they will have all the information as to what is wrong
with that airport--a system might be down; a number of things can take
place. But, nonetheless, it simplifies that system. Any pilot knows
what a NOTAM is, but for those who don't, they are notices provided by
the FAA to give information to pilots about air space, runways, flight
conditions, and all that. The procedure hasn't worked, because they
have actually said there are NOTAMs and they didn't even file the
NOTAMs and there is no way for the pilot to be able to tell if there is
a NOTAM out there, even though he is required to determine that there
is. The current system says it is the pilot's responsibility to be
aware of a NOTAM even if the FAA has not posted it.
Fourth and finally, the FAA's medical notification process has long
been known for a multitude of problems. Of all the requests for
assistance the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association receives each
year--28 percent of all of the legal assistance--28 percent are related
to the FAA's medical certification process. The bill requires a review
of the FAA's medical certification process and forms, to provide
greater clarity in the questions and reduce the instances of
misinterpretation that have, in the past, led to allegations of
intentional falsification against pilots. Nonprofit general aviation
groups, aviation medical examiners, and other qualified medical experts
will make up an advisory panel to advise the Administrator, again
giving the right people a voice in the overall determination. So this
is just an advisory board. The same way with revamping the NOTAM
process. These are advisory boards that are to work with the FAA in
coming up with a system.
There are two provisions in the bill that will require an FAA review
of current practices and two other provisions that make the system
specifically fairer for pilots.
After years of intervening to help fellow pilots, I was never fully
appreciative of the feeling of desperation until it happened to me.
This happened last October. I was flying a group of nonpilots in my
twin engine--one of my planes, a twin engine, it holds six people--we
were flying into Cameron County Airport. A lot of people don't realize
how big Texas is. It is way down on the tip of Texas. It is about the
same distance south as Key Biscayne, FL, or some place down there, but
it is way down there. I used to be a builder and developer there. I
have landed there over 200 times. I was flying a group down there. The
Corpus Approach handed me off to Valley Approach who took me all the
way down to runway 13. I will actually read what they said. Approach
control said: You are cleared for visual approach to runway 13. Then I
responded, and he said: Yes, 115 echo alpha roger, before you go there
is traffic that appears to be in the pattern landing there at 900 feet.
That is fine.
So this is what they do. That is wonderful.
I started landing, and you get to a point in a twin-engine plane full
of people where you have slowed down enough where you cannot make a go-
around. I was almost touching down when I saw they were working on the
runway. It was too late to go around.
The three problems I had and have heard about countless times from
pilots, which we correct with this legislation: When I tried to get the
voice recording, it took me 4 months, and I am a Senator. I thought:
What about these people out there and the frustration they are going
through? We will correct that. I was required to respond to allegations
within 10 days or they would proceed in an enforcement action against
me. By the time I received the 10-day notice, there were only 4 days
left to respond to the accusations, enforcement actions, and I did not
even know the reason for the enforcement actions. And, No. 3, we found
out the NOTAMs were never posted by the FAA until 11 days after this
took place. In other words, I did nothing wrong. But at any time I
could have suffered a revocation of my license.
I think it is important to mention that most of the people who work
at the FAA--be it the controllers, inspectors, investigators--are
helpful.
This year is my 32nd consecutive year to attend the Osh Kosh fly-in.
The first thing I always do is go up there and talk to all the
controllers. They are up there as volunteers, and I thank them for what
they are doing.
Less than 2 weeks ago, I was flying from Oklahoma to Wyoming. I
called on an instrument flight. I had to get an IFR clearance at 5
o'clock in the morning. The guy was so courteous, I asked him his name.
It is Bill Liebeno. He could not have been more helpful to me. Talk
about giving me all the NOTAMS, he said: The localizer is out, the DME
is out, Runway 14-32 is closed, taxiway B is closed, the approach
lights are out. He could not have been more factual.
I have a lot more to talk about. I know there are others who want to
speak before this very significant vote that is coming up at 5 o'clock,
which I think is a live quorum call. I would only say this: I am going
to introduce this bill on Wednesday. If there is anyone here--we
already have Senators Begich and Johanns, who are the cochairs of the
Senate Aviation Caucus. Of course, this is bipartisan. They are on as
cosponsors. We have several others as cosponsors.
I would say to any staff--I know no Members are listening--who happen
to be listening right now, if your Member wants to at least be
sensitive to the needs of general aviation, this may be
[[Page S4323]]
his or her only chance this year. I suggest those individuals who care
about the problems I outlined become cosponsors of this legislation
before I introduce it tomorrow afternoon.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PAUL. Madam President, I, as well as many Americans, am concerned
about the future of our country. I am concerned we may not be able to
continue to pay our bills. I am concerned one day in the near future we
could look like Greece. I do not want to see America rioting in the
streets because we cannot pay our bills. That day is coming. It is
coming in the near future if we do not wake up to the problem.
I am not alone. Members of the President's own administration have
said that the No. 1 threat to our national security is our national
debt. It is out of control. August 2 is fast approaching. August 2 is
when the debt ceiling is reached.
What is the debt ceiling? It is like reaching your credit card limit.
If you have a $5,000 a month credit card limit, and you have reached
it, do you call the company and say: Give me more credit or do you try
to live within your means? Do you try to only spend what money you
have? We as a country have been spending money we do not have. But it
has now gotten out of control. We owe China $1.1 trillion. We owe Japan
nearly $1 trillion. A spending addiction is our problem. It is out of
control.
We are spending $10 billion a day. Of that $10 billion a day, we are
borrowing $4 billion. We are spending $100,000 every second. Of that
$100,000 a second, we are borrowing $45,000 a second.
We are paying for our debt at historically low interest rates, about
2.5 percent. But many of us have lived through a time when interest
rates were much higher. The historic average is over 5 percent. If
interest rates go back to the historic average, we will be swamped in
debt. Interest will become, over the next 10 years, $5 trillion.
This is what looms. Our future is not a good one unless we get things
under control. So last week a group of us said no more. We do not want
to discuss anything else until we start discussing solutions for the
debt, solutions for the looming debt crisis. We said no more. So today
we will win and draw attention back to the debt ceiling. We are not
going to talk about anything until we resolve this issue. But we have
to have a real discussion. It has to include Republicans and Democrats
and Independents and everyone. But do you know what is going on. There
is a resolution before the Senate now. The Democrats say: Raise taxes
and that will fix the problem.
The problem is not revenue. The problem is spending. We used to spend
about 1 in 5 dollars up here. Now we are spending 1 in 4 dollars. So 1
in 4 dollars of the economy is coming to Washington. Twenty-five
percent of the GDP is spent in Washington. That is money that is not
left in the marketplace, not left in the hands of those who earned it,
and not left in the hands of people who can create jobs. It is being
wasted up here.
We are not spending the money wisely. We spend more than we take in,
so the interest to finance this profligate spending is bankrupting us.
The vast majority of our problem is interest, and it will grow. It is
growing exponentially. You can look at this chart I have in the Chamber
and you will see that interest is going to consume us. As you can see
from the chart, as the debt rises, it rises exponentially in the next
few years, unless we do something about it.
Unfortunately, I do not think the Democrats are serious. They have
produced a resolution that says they can raise taxes, which is a
nonstarter. It is a horrible prescription for an economy in the middle
of a recession, and it is not going anywhere.
We have proposed a resolution that could fix the problem. Our
resolution says that government can simply not act any differently than
individuals, that they should have to balance their budget. We have
introduced a resolution that says we, as Republicans, will vote to
raise the debt ceiling if we do three things: significant cuts in
Federal spending, at least back to the percentage we were before we got
into this administration; statutory caps, saying we are limited as to
how much money we can spend each year; and the third thing is we want a
balanced budget amendment. If we have these, we will raise the debt
ceiling. But short of that, we cannot possibly vote to raise the debt
ceiling unless government changes its ways.
Government is not spending your money wisely. People cannot account
for--even the Pentagon cannot balance its books. They refuse to be
audited because they say they are too big to be audited. We have to do
something about a government that is out of control. But we want a
serious dialog with the other side. Instead what we are getting is
frivolousness.
What I would say to the Democrats today is: You want to vote on
raising taxes? You think that is an answer? They have a resolution. I
do not want to filibuster their resolution. I will vote on it tonight.
If you want a vote on raising taxes--if the Democratic Party wants to
be the party of raising taxes, I am happy to be in the party that says
that is not the answer.
I call for a vote immediately, today. If Democrats want to raise
taxes, let's do it. I am happy to vote on that today because it is not
the answer. If the other side wants to have a full-throated debate on
this issue, let's do it. Let's debate over the next 2 days, and then we
have a solution. Let us vote on raising the debt ceiling. We will do it
in the next 2 days. We do not have to wait. Raise the debt ceiling,
contingent upon a balanced budget amendment. The American people demand
it, and I think we should ask for nothing less.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a
colloquy with my colleague from South Carolina after I make a few
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Libya
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is pretty obvious that the Senate
feels that its priorities--and I think they are well placed,
particularly in light of the fact that the Fourth of July recess was
canceled because of the issue of the debt limit and the deficit and our
lack of action and need for action on the issue--I understand that and
have suggested and agreed that this resolution on Libya be delayed.
However, I would point out that the Senate does need to have a debate
about United States policy and military action in Libya.
Whether my colleagues are supportive of what we are doing in Libya or
not I think is an issue that needs to be debated on the floor of the
Senate. I believe the Senate does play a constitutional role and maybe
even a more unique one than the other body. So I think it is time we
did have a debate, discussion of this issue, and an opinion rendered in
keeping with the War Powers Act.
Unfortunately, the administration has made it far more difficult than
it otherwise might have been if we had carried out our responsibilities
and the President carried out his responsibilities some months ago. The
fact is this conflict would have been over if we had taken a leadership
role and declared a no-fly zone when the rebel forces were on their way
to Benghazi.
The fact is, if the United States had used the full weight of its air
assets in this conflict, Qadhafi would be gone now. And I would tell my
colleagues, have no doubt, Qadhafi will go. He will go. The question is
when. And what role did the United States of America play in supporting
these people who are fighting for freedom? What role did the United
States of America play in trying to free up Qadhafi's ill-gotten gains
and have them given to the Transitional National Council? What role did
the United States play in leading from behind in Libya?
The United States of America leads, not NATO. We lead NATO. And when
someone says NATO is leading on this conflict, I would remind my
colleagues, of the 28 members of NATO, only 8 members are actually in
the fight, and one of our major allies, Germany, has taken a hike.
So if we had used the AC-130 gunships, the A-10 Warthog close air
support capability, Qadhafi would be
[[Page S4324]]
gone now. But the fact is, he will go, and it is up to us, in my view,
to express our support of people who are seeking the same rights and
freedoms that are guaranteed to us.
I would remind my colleagues who said we never should have been
involved in any way, it is a fact that Qadhafi and his forces were at
the gates of Benghazi, a city of 700,000 people, and Qadhafi has said
he would go house to house and kill--and kill--whoever they thought had
resisted them.
We say we should never have allowed Srebrenica, where 8,000 people
were massacred. We say we should never have allowed Rwanda to happen.
We say we should never have allowed the Holocaust to happen. The United
States did the right thing by stopping Qadhafi's forces at the gates of
Benghazi and preventing the massacre of I do not know how many
thousands of innocent civilians.
There is no doubt what Qadhafi has promised if he is able to remain
in power--a man who has the blood of Americans on his hands because of
the bombing of Pan Am 103, because of terrorist acts he supported in
Africa--he will do so again and has pledged to do so.
When my colleagues ask what American national security interests are
at stake, look at the man's past actions and look at what he has
promised to do if he is able to stay in power; and that is, to pose a
direct threat to the United States of America's vital national security
interests.
We are involved in Libya. My colleague from South Carolina will
testify we are providing refueling. We are providing intelligence. We
are providing all kinds of assistance. We are including using
Predators, which are killing the bad guys. So to somehow allege that
the United States is not engaged in hostilities which would trigger the
War Powers Act is simply sophistry. The Senate has been silent on this
issue for too long, in my view.
But I also want to caution my colleagues about preventing United
States action as well as authorizing.
The last time the Congress of the United States of America engaged in
cutting off funding was at the end of the Vietnam war. Whether
historians or people happen to acknowledge it, a lot of bad things
happened after we cut off funding in Vietnam. Amongst them was millions
of Vietnamese put in reeducation camps and thousands slaughtered. So I
would caution my colleagues about actions of Congress which prohibit
certain actions on the part of the administration. But most of all,
America should lead.
We should use our air assets, not our ground assets, to get rid of
this brutal dictator and his regime. Every day that goes by innocent
civilians in Libya are wounded and killed.
So I would ask my colleague from South Carolina if he has a few
words, but also to address the issue of how much U.S. involvement
actually is there, which would then--by most objective observers--
trigger the Congress's requirement to act in keeping with the War
Powers Act and our constitutional obligations.
Mr. GRAHAM. Well, I thank the Senator. I will give my thoughts as
briefly as I can. My first thought is that we live in incredibly
dangerous times--exciting and dangerous. What is the Arab spring about?
What are people asking for in Libya? They are asking to replace Qadhafi
and form a new government where they will have a say. I do not think
that is too much to ask.
All I can say is that America's freedom is best secured when she,
America, is assisting others to obtain theirs. And the one thing
history tells us, free people settle their differences without
resorting to the evils of war. So to those in this body and throughout
the country--I know we are broke. We are here today to supposedly talk
about the budget. Well, we are not doing anything but talking. We are
$14.3 trillion in debt. There are all kinds of ideas between
Republicans and Democrats about how to get the country's fiscal house
in order. It is July 5. We are here looking at each other doing
nothing. But there is another part of the world, as the Senate and the
House basically talk about America being in debt, where people are
dying, as I speak, trying to change their government for the better.
What should we do? I will tell you what we should do. We should help
where we can. Senator McCain has experienced war unlike very few people
in this body. He knows when we go to war bad things happen to good
people. The idea that he or myself or anybody else relishes trying to
go to war or being in war is offensive, quite frankly. He knows better
than I, and I have a pretty good understanding of what happens when we
go to war.
But here is what happens when we do not go to war sometimes: Bad
people are able to do incredible things that we wind up having to
confront later, and it costs everybody more to have waited.
So what are we doing in Libya? We are following rather than leading.
Now, to Senator McCain's question. NATO's bombing activities are being
done without American air power. We spend more money than all NATO
nations combined on defense. I know a lot of Americans do not like
that. I do not like it either, but it is the way it is. We are the
arsenal of democracy.
When America does not fly, wars go on longer, more people get raped,
more people get killed. Let me tell you, if Qadhafi survives this is
the end of NATO.
If you do not want America to go alone in this dangerous world, count
me in. But who are we going to partner with? If the U.N. is seen by the
American people as an unreliable group to deal with dictators--and it
is--what if NATO is no longer an organization that people throughout
the world respect on the side of good, and the evil side of the ledger
does not care if NATO gets involved because they do not have the will
to do anything about it?
So we should be involved with our NATO partners. Our NATO partners
depend on Libya more than we do. They came to Afghanistan not because
they were attacked but because we were attacked. They are our friends.
They are our allies. They have been with us trying to make sure
Afghanistan never goes back into the darkness, a place that attacked us
or them again.
So when they need us, I will tell President Obama: Now is not the
time to sit on the sidelines. I know we are a war-weary Nation, but
there is no upside to Qadhafi staying in power. That is a national
security nightmare for this country.
Here is a recent headline: Qadhafi threatens to attack Europe over
airstrikes. Colonel Qadhafi has threatened to carry out attacks against
homes, offices, families in Europe unless NATO stops its campaign of
air strikes against his regime in Libya. He actually means it. Hitler
meant it. He means it.
So we should be talking about the debt; we are not. We should be
taking a stand against Qadhafi in an effective way. As Senator McCain
said, we are leading from behind. I just cannot tell you how upset I am
with policies coming from this administration that are sending the
signal to our allies that we are not as reliable as we should be, and
to our enemies that we do not have the same amount of will to protect
our freedom as they do to take it away from us.
Mr. McCAIN. I would ask my friend, is it not true that we are
providing tanker support, logistics support, Predator strikes,
intelligence, and all kinds of assets to those eight nations that are
involved in the fight? When we are using Predators and killing people,
that pretty well fits the definition of ``hostilities.'' Yet, for
reasons which are still not clear to me, the administration fails to
acknowledge that.
Could I also say one thing that is very concerning as well is this
recognition of the Transitional National Council. I know my colleague--
because we were just in Turkey--noticed that another country, Turkey,
one of the most important nations in the Middle East, just recognized
the Transitional National Council, froze the assets that Qadhafi has.
Yet this administration refuses to do so. There is some $30 billion, I
am told, of Qadhafi assets that we could freeze and make available to
the Transitional National Council. It may require some legislative
action, but it requires administration leadership. They could then pay
people, could provide arms and weapons to their own people, as well as
subsidies for the government.
Again, an example of leading from behind--the French, the Italians,
the Turks, and other nations have all now recognized the Transitional
National
[[Page S4325]]
Council. Yet the United States has failed to do so.
Mr. GRAHAM. If I could try to answer the hostility question. When we
are using Predator drones to bring down military targets, that, to me,
is an acceptable situation in Libya. I do not want ground troops in
Libya. The people in Libya do not want a ground invasion by NATO
forces. They want our help. And what do we have to offer better than
anybody in the world? Intelligence gathering. These platforms that are
gathering information about targets are unique to America.
The target packages that are being put together are being done mostly
by Americans, and we are turning these target packages over to NATO
countries. Some of the aircraft that are flying--and God bless our
allies for taking this risk--are 30 years old. No one has the ability
like the American Air Force and naval forces to carry on aerial
campaigns.
But some people in this body have a right to have their say like we
do. We should be debating this, but the administration's position that
a Predator drone attack is not a hostile act is dangerous because in
Yemen, the administration, with my full support, is taking the fight to
Yemen today. They are using Predator drone attacks against al-Qaida
groups in Yemen. We just had special forces involved in killing al-
Qaida operatives in Somalia. We have to be on the offensive. We need to
be hitting these people over there before they can reorganize and hit
us here.
So I support the administration's ability and constitutional right to
take the fight to the enemy. But for them to tell the body these are
not hostile acts is the ultimate confusion. It is confusing to the
enemy; it is confusing to our allies; it is confusing to the American
people. I reject this definition being offered by this administration
that using Predator drones to attack targets is not a hostile act.
I believe the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. There are two
things we can do in this body as a Member of Congress: We can declare
war and we can cut off funding when we do not like things the way they
are going. We very seldom declare war in this Nation from a
congressional point of view for a reason. But we have constantly
engaged forces that wish to attack us and our allies without
declarations of war. If you do not like what we are doing in Libya, cut
off funding. Do not try to micromanage the war through congressional
fiat.
So $30 billion is available to the Libyan people. It is money frozen,
stolen by Qadhafi. The Turkish Government, the French, the British in
some sense have recognized this Transitional National Council. If we
would do that, they would have access to the $30 billion.
Senator McCain met with the leadership of this council. I have too.
They would gladly pay us back for any assistance we could provide if
they could get their hands on the money. Does the Senator agree with
that?
Mr. McCAIN. I have been assured personally by the leadership of the
Transitional National Council--by the way, one who has a doctorate from
the University of Pittsburgh, and their Finance Minister was an
economics professor at the University of Washington. So let's dispel
any illusions about we do not know who they are. They are good and
decent people who have risen up against an oppressive and repressive
dictator and murderer. They want to reimburse the United States for our
expenses, the way the Kuwaitis and the Saudis did after Operation
Desert Storm.
But the point is that, again, anybody who believes that it is not in
America's national security interest to see Qadhafi gone has paid no
attention to his words and his actions. History will record how the
United States stood on people who were struggling both peacefully and
where it necessitated the use of force of arms, is where the United
States of America was.
Mr. GRAHAM. If I may, we have our good colleague, a Naval
intelligence officer, Senator Kirk from Illinois, and we will certainly
yield to him now. But one last thought.
America needs to do two things quickly: We need to get our fiscal
house in order. We need to balance our budget and decide among
ourselves how important is this national security. To me, it is the No.
1 thing we should do in Congress. If we do not get that right, there is
nothing else that is going to matter. There will never be economic
prosperity in America if the world is in the hands of evil people who
will make it very difficult to travel and trade and do business.
The other thing we need to do, after we balance our budget, is to
have a clear vision of who we are and what we believe. I believe we are
destined to lead the free world. I do not consider it a burden. I
consider it the birthright of all Americans, not only to maintain our
freedom but to help others secure theirs.
A word of warning: The day that America rejects that leadership role
is a day we will eventually lose our freedom and more damage will be
done to this country if we disengage than if we do engage.
So with that, I would like to recognize Senator Kirk from Illinois.
Mr. KIRK. I would like to agree with the Senator on the Libya
resolution. But I understand from the majority leader that we are not
going to take up the Libya resolution now. I would just urge them--
before we descend into any potential partisan warfare on any other
issue, there is a bill that is ready for the Senate's consideration
right now that was overwhelmingly, unanimously approved by Democrats
and Republicans on the Appropriations Committee, and it is ready for
Senate consideration this week.
My hope is that we will now, or maybe tomorrow, take up the Military
Construction and VA appropriations bill, which Senator Johnson and I
have coauthored, and which Senator Inouye and the Senator Cochran have
approved. It is $1.2 billion in discretionary spending below the
President's request. It is $620 million below the enacted level. It is
even $2.6 million in budget authority below the House mark. This is
ready to go.
So absent debate on some other resolution which has little to no
future in the House of Representatives, my hope is that we will follow
the House that has already approved the VA-MILCON appropriations bill,
and we will take up overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation that benefits
our men and women in uniform and those veterans, and that we will not
waste this week on legislation that has little to no future. Instead,
we will achieve something this week by having taken up the MILCON-VA
bill, which was so overwhelmingly approved by the Senate Appropriations
Committee just last week.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend's advice. We are
working to make sure the week is spent relating to the No. 1 issue
facing the country today; that is, how to make sure we get a handle on
deficit spending.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll and the following
Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:
[Quorum No. 3]
Casey
Cornyn
Graham
Isakson
Johanns
Kirk
McCain
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Reid
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is not present.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to
request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion of the majority leader. The
yeas and nays were ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators desiring to vote
or change their vote?
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Lieberman) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. McCONNELL. the following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from North Carolina
(Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), the Senator
from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Lee).
[[Page S4326]]
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]
YEAS--83
Akaka
Ayotte
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Crapo
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--8
Barrasso
Coburn
Cornyn
Enzi
Graham
Inhofe
McConnell
Vitter
NOT VOTING--9
Alexander
Burr
DeMint
Heller
Kyl
Lee
Lieberman
Murkowski
Murray
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum is present.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
____________________