[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S599-S609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to respond briefly to comments of 
the junior Senator from Kentucky earlier today regarding his amendment 
to cut off all U.S. aid for Egypt.
  First, let's take a step back. The new conditions on military aid for 
Egypt, which I wrote with Senator Lindsey Graham and were signed into 
law just 2 months ago, require a certification by the Secretary of 
State that the Egyptian military is supporting the transition to 
civilian government and protecting fundamental freedoms and due 
process. If the crisis involving the nongovernmental organizations 
whose offices were raided and are now facing criminal charges is not 
resolved satisfactorily, there is no way the certification can be made 
and Egypt will not receive $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid. But the 
Leahy-Graham conditions give the Administration flexibility to respond 
to this crisis. If we take a leap into the lurch and adopt the Paul 
Amendment, we risk causing a backlash and the opposite reaction of what 
we want.
  It is ironic that the junior Senator from Kentucky, who is now 
insisting on a vote on his amendment to cut off all aid--not just 
military aid but also economic aid--did not even vote for the Omnibus 
bill that contained the Leahy-Graham certification requirement. For him 
it is all or nothing, but the real world is not so black and white.
  No one disagrees with the goals of the Paul Amendment. Its purpose is 
no different than the Leahy-Graham provision in current law that has 
caused the suspension of military aid. We are all outraged by the 
crackdown against the NGOs. We want the charges dropped and their 
property returned so they can resume their pro-democracy work. But the 
scope of the Paul Amendment is so sweeping that it could backfire and 
make the situation immeasurably worse: The amendment cuts off all U.S. 
aid to Egypt--current and prior year--including hundreds of millions of 
dollars in economic aid and funding for anti-terrorism and 
nonproliferation programs. Aid that supports the Government of Egypt's 
ability to interdict arms shipments to Gaza would be cut off.
  There is much at stake: the fate of the 19 American citizens facing 
criminal charges in Egypt; Egypt's continued adherence to the Israeli-
Egyptian Peace Agreement could be jeopardized; over-flights for U.S. 
military aircraft; access to the Suez Canal; and the potential for 
further crackdowns against Egyptian civil society organizations.
  If the Administration were ignoring the certification requirement in 
current law I might vote for this amendment, but they are not. In fact, 
the NGOs have repeatedly praised the Administration's efforts on their 
behalf. They have applauded the new leverage provided by the Leahy-
Graham conditions. Both the State Department and the Pentagon are 
intensely focused on trying to resolve this. General Dempsey was just 
in Egypt meeting with top military officials about it.
  If, over the coming days or weeks the situation continues to 
deteriorate, we can revisit this. But I would urge the junior Senator 
from Kentucky to withdraw his amendment until such time and to refrain 
from obstructing other business of the Senate. Let us see how things 
play out. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. The Egyptian military 
will recognize that these NGOs were doing nothing more than supporting 
the transition to democracy in an appropriate and transparent manner, 
and the Egyptian military will agree that it is in Egypt's best 
interest to preserve close relations with the United States.
  I see other Senators on the floor, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Alabama.


                               The Budget

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this morning we had the Budget Committee 
hearing and the testimony of Mr. Zients, OMB Director, who works for 
the President and prepared, under the President's direction, the budget 
they submitted to Congress for the United States for fiscal year 2013 
beginning

[[Page S600]]

October 1. It is an important document. It is important because in it 
the President lays out his plan for what this Nation needs to do not 
just this year but for 10 years, during a time in which our debt crisis 
remains the No. 1 threat to America. That is what the experts from the 
President's own debt commission told us--we have never faced a more 
predictable economic crisis if we don't change our course of borrowing. 
We are now spending $3,700 billion a year and taking in $2,200 billion, 
borrowing 40 percent of what we spend. So it was an important hearing.
  I was deeply disappointed that our new Director, Mr. Zients, seemed 
to be focused on one thing; that is, regurgitating the talking points 
he had been provided and steadfastly avoiding answering simple, 
important questions put to him by members of the committee.
  We have two members of the committee here who I think will be sharing 
remarks about what we talked about today and how we need to address our 
debt crisis--Senator John Thune and Senator Kelly Ayotte. They were 
there and participated and asked questions.
  I think we all agree it was one of the worst witness performances in 
terms of being responsive to the questions that we have seen in our 
time in the Senate. I hate to say that. I know he was told not to say 
anything, just to keep repeating the talking points. But when America 
is facing a financial crisis and you are asking the budget director 
fundamental, simple questions, you expect and have a right to expect 
answers, not for me but for the American people. He does not work for 
the Obama political campaign; Mr. Zients works for the American people. 
He is a man who has access to the foot-thick, four-volume budget that 
was sent out, and he helped write it. It was written under his 
supervision. So we should be able to get straight answers immediately 
from this gentleman.
  For example, I asked a simple question right off the bat: Does the 
President's budget spend more money than the agreement we reached last 
August over raising the debt limit for America? Does it spend more or 
less? And it went on for 4 minutes, and I kept repeating again and 
again: Well, is it more or less? Finally, at some point he said the 
President's budget would spend less, and that is not accurate. It 
spends at least $1.5 trillion more. So the budget director can't get 
straight whether or not the President's budget spends more and is $1.5 
trillion off? A trillion dollars is a lot of money. I felt strongly 
about it.
  Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy 
with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I see Senator Thune is here, and he has 
been through a lot of these matters and a lot of hearings during his 
time as part of the leadership here in the Senate, and I would ask him 
how he felt about the hearing this morning and the issues our country 
faces.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member on 
the Budget Committee for engaging in this discussion, and I am anxious 
to hear from our colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Ayotte. She was 
there this morning and was able to ask questions of the witness, the 
panel we had in front of the Budget Committee.
  I guess what struck me about listening to that discussion was just 
the evasiveness we had from Mr. Zients and, in fact, as the Senator 
from Alabama has mentioned, his failure to respond to very direct 
questions--not questions that are trick questions, questions that are 
just a matter of the facts.
  I think what I was struck by too is that when he was asked about 
whether the administration wanted Majority Leader Reid to bring the 
President's budget to the floor, he could not give a direct answer, and 
his comments indicated that they would not be calling on the majority 
leader to bring the President's budget before the Senate. The other 
thing I was struck by is that the President's own budget chief could 
not confirm or verify that the President has added already about $5 
trillion to the debt since taking office. Those were both things that 
seemed like very straightforward questions and should have been very 
straightforward answers.
  The fact is it is very difficult for him or any other official in 
this administration to defend this budget. This budget is not a serious 
budget, and even people on the other side, people in the media have all 
passed judgment and basically said that this is not the kind of budget 
that takes on the challenges the country faces.
  I would say to my colleagues that it is hard to take this seriously 
when they aren't serious about it, but they ought to be because these 
are serious times. We live in a time where we are running a $15 
trillion debt. This budget would add another $11 trillion to that debt 
over the next 10 years. We are living in a time when we have European 
countries that are on the verge of fiscal collapse with regard to their 
economic and fiscal situations, much of which we are watching on a 
daily basis unfold in front of us and what that might mean for our 
country, and hopefully there is something instructive about that 
because clearly we need to be taking a page out of what is happening 
there and getting our house in order now.
  We have made promises to the American people that we can't keep. We 
need to reform our entitlement programs. And that probably more than 
anything else was the biggest disappointment in the President's budget 
because it is the fourth year in a row where he has proposed a budget 
that doesn't do anything to address the fundamental drivers of Federal 
spending, and by that I mean the mandatory part of the budget; that is, 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP. All of those different 
programs represent today, with interest on the debt, about 64 percent 
of all Federal spending. At the end of the 10-year period, they would 
represent 78 percent of all Federal spending. So this budget is a 
dramatic increase in the amount we are spending on various programs. 
That is what is driving Federal spending today, that is what will drive 
Federal spending into the future, and that is why a failure and a lack 
of leadership when it comes to the issue of entitlement reform is so 
disturbing, and it really is a missed opportunity.
  I understand that this is an election year. Everybody says this is a 
campaign document, this is a political document. That does not absolve 
the President or us of the responsibility we have to the American 
people to start making some decisions around here that will get this 
country back on the right fiscal track.
  When you propose a budget that spends literally $47 trillion over the 
next 10 years, which is basically what we are talking about here, then 
you have not done much to bend the spending curve in the right 
direction. So I would strongly disagree with Mr. Zients' statement 
today that this is a ``very tight budget''--that is how I think he 
described it.
  We have Governors around the country who are making some tough 
decisions to balance their State budget. The Federal Government ought 
to do the same. South Dakota is a good example of that. We made some 
difficult decisions this last year, and as a consequence of that, our 
budget situation is much better this year, but it is because they had 
the courage to step forward and do some things that needed to be done.
  The budget proposed by the President fails to rein in government 
spending and balance the budget. As I said, it adds $11 trillion to the 
national debt, which will reach--if my colleagues can believe this--
nearly $26 trillion by the end of the decade under the proposal the 
President put forward.
  I could go on, but I would say to my colleague from Alabama and to my 
colleague from New Hampshire that based upon what we heard this 
morning, I guess I don't feel very reassured that this administration 
gets it. The President's budget submission clearly was an example that 
they don't get it, and the defense of it this morning that we heard in 
front of the Budget Committee certainly reinforced that impression with 
me. But I would be interested in knowing what the Senator from New 
Hampshire, who was there and able to question the panelists, including 
the OMB Director, thought based on the testimony we heard this morning.
  Ms. AYOTTE. I thank my colleague from South Dakota as well as my 
colleague from Alabama, the ranking

[[Page S601]]

member of the Budget Committee. I was deeply troubled this morning, 
because I asked Mr. Zients about the President's budget and my concern 
that under the trajectory of the President's budget we would be 
reaching $26 trillion of debt in the next 10 years, and I was shocked 
when he described the President's budget as a milestone, as leadership. 
This to me is not leadership. If it is a milestone for anything, this 
budget is a milestone for bankruptcy and what we see happening in 
Europe and other areas of the world that we don't want to happen to our 
country.
  When I think about it--I am the mother of two children--how could we 
possibly ask our children to pay back $26 trillion in debt? It is 
outrageous.
  I was surprised that Mr. Zients couldn't answer a basic question such 
as how much debt has been added under this President. As the Senator 
from South Dakota mentioned, it is close to $5 trillion in debt.
  Also our entitlement programs. I know my grandparents are relying on 
Medicare and Social Security. I asked Mr. Zients--the Medicare trustees 
have said that Medicare is going bankrupt in 2024. We know Medicare is 
a huge driver of our unsustainable debt and that if we don't act to 
preserve these programs, then the people who are relying on them are 
going to be put in a horrible position very soon--2024 is coming very 
quickly. I asked Mr. Zients the question: What is the President's plan 
to preserve Medicare? What I got was a completely insufficient answer. 
That is because in this budget there is no plan to preserve Medicare 
for my grandparents and for everyone who is relying on Medicare right 
now.
  When I reviewed the President's budget, it reminded me of a 
discussion I have had with my kids recently. In the last couple of 
weeks we have been talking about Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog who 
comes out and looks at his shadow to see if we are going to have more 
winter. Well, Punxsutawney has already come out of his hole, but in 
Washington it is Groundhog Day all over again when it comes to the 
President's budget, because every year this President has been in 
office, his proposed budgets have left us with trillion-dollar 
deficits, increased gross debt as a percentage of the share of our 
economy, continued massive spending, racking up enormous debt to where 
we will reach $26 trillion in 10 years. There is no plan to reform 
Social Security and Medicare, to preserve these programs, and they are 
mandatory spending and, as Senator Thune mentioned, the largest driver 
of our debt, and massive tax increases. It is staggering when we think 
about a budget that offers close to the largest--if not the largest--
tax increase in the history of our country, yet still runs a $1.3 
trillion deficit this year and at least a $900 billion deficit in 2013. 
It is the worst of all worlds. We are going to increase taxes on small 
businesses in this country that we are asking to generate revenue and 
create jobs, yet we are still going to run trillion-dollar deficits.
  This is a very irresponsible budget. We cannot afford a campaign 
document. We need a budget for this country. Because when I think about 
where we are, when I think about what is happening in other countries 
around the world--in Europe--and the future of our country, and not 
only all of us here today, but what we will be passing on to my 
children and your children because they can't repay $26 trillion in 
debt--how is that going to happen? And how fair is that? They didn't 
incur this debt. We did. We have a responsibility to address this now.
  I have been deeply disappointed by this President and his failure of 
leadership on this issue. Think about it: My colleague Senator Gregg 
served on the President's fiscal commission. The President convenes a 
fiscal commission and ignores his own fiscal commission. In fact, since 
that time, we have incurred $1.5 trillion of debt since the fiscal 
commission issued a report. Last year the President's budget came up 
for a vote in this body. It was so fiscally irresponsible that not one 
Member of this Chamber, from either party or the Independents, voted 
for the budget. That says it all. Yet, again, we have a similar budget 
being proposed by this President. That is why I say, unfortunately, it 
is Groundhog Day in Washington all over again.
  It is unfortunate, because the American people have seen this over 
and over again, and they are very tired because they understand at home 
they have to balance their budgets. They understand that at home, they 
are making the difficult calls that need to be made to prioritize. Yet, 
here in Washington, with this President's budget and the trajectory our 
country is on because of the failure of leadership, we are in a 
position where we are hurting our country, and I am very concerned 
about what we are passing on to the next generation. I hope my 
colleagues on the Senate Budget Committee will actually do the work 
that needs to be done and put together a responsible budget for this 
country, because it has been over 1,000 days since the Democratic-
controlled Senate has actually done the work that needs to be done for 
this country. If the President is not going to do it, then I hope that 
in this body, the Senate, we will put together a responsible budget 
that gets our fiscal house in order for the future of our country.
  I hope this Acting Budget Director, Mr. Zients, the next time he 
comes before the Senate Budget Committee, will answer the questions he 
is asked. This is simple math. When Senator Sessions asked him whether 
we are spending more money, one would hope to get a straight answer. 
That is the least the American people deserve. I am hoping that is what 
they will receive going forward.
  I wish to ask my colleague, Senator Sessions, the ranking member of 
the Budget Committee, what his impression of the President's budget is 
in terms of where it leaves our country going forward and what he hopes 
the Senate Budget Committee will do to address this fiscal crisis.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague. I know Senator Ayotte wanted to 
be on the Budget Committee. We had a host of fabulous new Senators who 
wanted to be on it. We got four, but many more wanted to be on it. 
Senator Portman, Senator Toomey, Senator Johnson, and Senator Ayotte 
were selected.
  I would say I know how disappointing it was because we talked about 
how we didn't even mark up a budget last year. So the people who wanted 
to be on there to participate in the great issue of our time--the debt 
this Nation is facing--got no ability or option or opportunity to 
participate in the debate because the majority party in the Senate 
decided that was not what they wanted to do. The majority leader said 
it would be foolish to have a budget. It is very sad.
  The President's budget represents an opportunity and a responsibility 
to guide this Nation for the future. The President has no higher duty, 
no higher responsibility than to help the Nation avoid an obvious 
crisis. Mr. Bowles and Senator Simpson, who chaired President Obama's 
debt commission, looked us in the eye and issued a joint statement on 
the Budget Committee last year about this time that said the Nation has 
never faced a more predictable economic crisis. What they were saying 
was if we don't change what we are doing, we are headed to a crisis. 
Mr. Bowles, President Clinton's Chief of Staff, said to us that this 
crisis could happen within 2 years.

  I saw yesterday on the television, ``Morning Joe,'' Mr. Haass of the 
Council on Foreign Relations talk about Greece. He is internationally 
recognized. He said the United States could be having this next year. I 
would say what is stunning to me is that when we look at this budget, 
it does not change the debt trajectory. We have looked at those 
numbers. We have looked at those numbers and it does not change the 
debt trajectory. It increases spending. It increases taxes. And, at the 
end of the day, based on current law that we achieved last year--
minimum steps, but they were achieved--the Budget Control Act numbers 
that would allow the debt to increase to $11.5 trillion next year, 
under the President's budget that he asserts reduces the deficit by $4 
trillion, the deficit would increase by $11.2 trillion--almost no 
change at all. We need big change. He took away some of the spending 
reductions and replaced them with more tax increases--the reductions we 
painfully agreed to last August.
  I am disappointed in the President's leadership on that. The Senator 
from South Dakota has been here and dealt with these issues. Maybe he 
has comments about it. I will yield to him.

[[Page S602]]

  Mr. THUNE. I would say to the Senator from Alabama that it was 
interesting to me because at the White House Fiscal Responsibility 
Summit in February of 2009--this is in the context of discussing our 
unsustainable budget deficits--President Obama said the following:

       Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past 
     few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the 
     consequences to the next budget of the next administration or 
     the next generation.

  That is exactly what he has been doing now for 4 years, literally--
every budget, every year. We think, OK, maybe this year the President 
is going to get serious because we have serious problems and these are 
serious times in which we are living and we have to get the situation 
turned around or we are headed for certain disaster. Yet, last year, as 
was noted, the President's budget when it was put on the floor of the 
Senate did not garner a single vote here--not a single vote. It was 97 
to 0. It was unanimously rejected by the Senate, Members on both sides 
voting against it.
  This year one would think, OK, the situation has gotten much worse. 
Our fiscal situation has deteriorated even more. The amount of debt we 
have racked up is continuing to accumulate. We thought perhaps this 
year we would see a budget that actually did address these problems, 
but, no, we have a budget that is filled with more spending, more debt, 
and higher taxes at a time literally when we need to be tackling 
spending, we need to be taking on saving Social Security and Medicare 
for the next generation, and doing something to create economic growth 
and get jobs created for American workers.
  What is disappointing is not just the fact that the spending and debt 
situation is out of control but also the impact it has on the economy. 
The Senator from Alabama knows full well, because we both have studied 
this subject, that when we look at the research that has been done with 
regard to the impact of spending on debt and economic job creation, 
when we achieve a certain level or arrive at a certain level of debt as 
a percentage of the economy--90 percent is the threshold and it costs 
about a percentage point of economic growth every year, which means 
fewer jobs, and in this case about a million fewer jobs, in our 
economy. So the high, sustained levels, chronic high levels of debt and 
spending are directly impacting our economy's ability to get out of 
this cycle we are in and to start growing and expanding again and 
creating jobs.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Senator from South Dakota says ``directly impact.'' 
The way I read the Reinhart-Rogoff study and what I think I hear the 
Senator saying is that this isn't just that a debt crisis might 
happen--and those can happen quickly, as they warn in their book, that 
a crisis can happen when we are at this debt level out of the blue, 
things we never expected, and we are in serious financial trouble, like 
our 2006-2007 financial crisis that nobody predicted.
  But I guess what I am saying to you is, they also indicate that huge 
debt can impact economic growth today. And they say, when your debt 
reaches 90 percent of GDP, your debt is that much that it will slow 
growth by 1 to 2 percent.
  We are already at 100 percent of GDP. Does the Senator think it is 
possible their study, based on empirical data, might be telling us that 
the debt, right now--because it weakens confidence and drains 
investment capital--that our debt now could be slowing our economy?
  Mr. THUNE. I think it is very clear. I think if you look at, as the 
Senator said, the debt as a percent of GDP--now over 100 percent; think 
about that--this is the highest level of debt, highest level of 
spending as a percentage of our GDP that we have seen literally since 
the end of World War II. We have not seen anything that rivals it. We 
have seen now 4 years in a row where we have run trillion-dollar-plus 
deficits, and we have added, as was said earlier, nearly $5 trillion to 
the debt since this President took office. But when you get that kind 
of debt level sustained over time, it does have a direct impact on jobs 
and the economy, and I believe we are paying a price for that right 
now. You can look at what is happening, obviously, with the high levels 
of debt and the impact it is having on countries in Europe.
  So this whole idea with the President producing his budget and not 
taking that issue on, not doing anything substantial or meaningful with 
regard to spending or debt, and then adding to it, and making matters 
even worse, raising taxes by almost $2 trillion--it seems like a most 
natural instinct. It is just in their DNA. Everything has to be about 
raising taxes. And, clearly, that is not the solution. We all know 
that. In fact, we need to create policies that will be conducive to 
economic growth and job creation in this country.
  Raising taxes on investment, which is what this budget does--by the 
way, it would raise capital gains tax rates from 15 percent to 20 
percent right away, and then if you are hit by the Buffett rule, it 
would go up to 30 percent. It would raise the dividend tax rates from 
15 percent to up over 39 percent--almost triple the tax on dividends in 
this country, which, incidentally, have already been taxed at the 
corporate business level. So you are talking about almost tripling the 
tax rate that Americans are going to have to pay on investment income. 
Then you look at the ObamaCare taxes that would kick in, the 3.8 
percent on investment income, you add that and you start getting to a 
marginal income tax rate that is up in the 43, 44-percent range. It is 
very hard to argue that can be anything but awful when it comes to 
jobs.
  The entire budget--from the failure to address spending and debt, the 
failure to take on saving Social Security and Medicare by reforming our 
entitlement programs; and it seems as though the constant reliance on 
taxes is their answer to everything--could not be a worse budget for 
the American people. It could not be a worse budget for the economy. It 
could not be a worse budget for jobs. And it certainly could not be a 
worse budget for seniors, as we continue to watch Medicare and Social 
Security cascade further and further toward bankruptcy. It is a bust as 
far as I am concerned. I think that is why people on both sides and 
people in the media and the American people get it.
  It is time for this administration to get serious because these are 
serious times. When you are going to do big things, you need 
Presidential leadership. There are 100 Senators, 435 Members of the 
House of Representatives, 535 of us in all. There is only one 
President, one person who can sign a bill into law, one person who can 
engage the American public and the Congress in a way that will help us 
solve these big problems and tackle the challenges we face as a Nation 
right now. This budget does none of that.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator for his comments and his leadership 
on all these matters that relate fundamentally to job creation and 
economic growth. Tax increases do not facilitate economic growth. And 
when you surge debt, it increases more and more pressure to raise 
taxes. A lot of people in my State say: Jeff, the debt is being run up 
so you will have to raise taxes. That is what they planned all along. 
Whether it is true or not, we are finding that. So we need to take 
steps today to put this country on a sound financial course.
  To demonstrate how impactful the debt is, this year the interest on 
the debt we will pay--of the entire $3,700 billion we spend, $225 
billion will be spent on paying the interest on the money we borrowed. 
A lot of people do not understand, when you borrow money, you pay 
interest on it. And the interest rates at this point in history are 
some of the lowest in history for a developed economy. But the 
President's own budget--the tables he has in his own budget, the 
assumptions he has about the expenses we will have to pay--assumes that 
10 years from today we will not be paying $230 billion but $850 
billion. That is more than Social Security. That is more than Medicare. 
That is more than the Defense Department. That is 10 times what we 
spend on food stamps. It is multiple times what we spend on education 
and highways--maybe 20 times what we spend on highways. And we are 
talking about a highway bill today and trying to find the money to keep 
it on a basic level of funding, to find the money for that, and this 
interest is going to be hammering us every year because we are running 
extraordinary deficits every year.

[[Page S603]]

  The American people are not happy with us because they know there can 
be no excuse for spending $3,700 billion and taking in only $2,200 
billion and borrowing 40 cents of every dollar, having to have interest 
be the fastest growing item in the entire budget of America, and soon 
to dwarf the Defense Department, even Social Security and Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  This is not right. This is bad policy. There can be no excuses. The 
President--the man who is captain of the ship--is having lunch 
somewhere while the ship is heading to the shoals and not providing any 
leadership to get us off this path. In fact, worse, I would say, the 
President attacks people who propose serious solutions. Paul Ryan in 
the House worked hard on a budget. They laid out some good proposals 
that would have changed the debt course of America. It was a historic 
budget, do you not think, I say to Senator Thune.
  We can disagree about parts of it, but he was attacked by the 
President, who himself proposes nothing. And the leadership in this 
body will not even bring up a budget. He said it was foolish. Why is it 
foolish? Because if we have a budget debate on the floor of the Senate, 
people get to offer amendments, and they get to debate the honest depth 
of the danger this country faces, honestly, openly, and you have to 
vote on it, and the majority leader does not want to have to have his 
Members vote on it because he wants to avoid responsibility for facing 
the greatest crisis this Nation is facing.

  Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appointed 
by President Obama, said: The greatest threat to our national security 
is the debt. That is true. It is out there. If we do not deal with it, 
we are going to have a crisis.
  I am disappointed at this whole process. I was disappointed at the 
hearing today. I thought we got irresponsible answers. I think the 
budget is irresponsible. It in no way deals with the main drivers, as 
Senator Thune has said: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food 
stamps--all entitlements. Those are not even touched in any serious 
way. Increasing at 8 percent, the highest growth rate predicted by the 
President in their 10-year budget is 4 percent. So these programs are 
increasing twice the rate of GDP. That is unsustainable. It is 
unsustainable. We need some leadership around here to confront it, and 
we do not need a President who attacks people who have the courage to 
actually lay out some plans to fix it.
  Mr. THUNE. If the Senator would yield on that point, in closing, I do 
think there will be a vote probably at some point. The House is going 
to pass a budget. We know that. I suspect what will happen is what 
happened last year. If the Senate fails to produce, if the Democratic 
majority does not produce a budget here, we will end up voting on the 
House budget, perhaps on the President's budget. But the regrettable 
thing about all that is we are not doing our job as Senators. It has 
been over 1,000 days now, and this will be the fourth year in a row in 
which this body has not adopted a budget. What we have gotten from the 
President, of course, is not a serious one. All they want to do is get 
out and demagog and attack people who are serious about solving this 
problem.
  Last year, as was the case with the House-passed budget, when it came 
over here, it was routinely attacked and demagoged. But nothing was 
ever put forward that would represent an alternative because they do 
not want to deal with these issues. It is unfortunate for the American 
people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. THUNE. We yield our time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I want to talk about another subject; 
that is, five of the executive branch nominations that are pending 
before the Senate today.
  To put this in context, every day when the Senate is in session, one 
of the documents that is put on every desk here in the Senate Chamber 
is what is called the Executive Calendar. The Executive Calendar is a 
listing of all the nominations that have been reported by the various 
committees of the Senate for consideration by the full Senate. These 
are, of course, nominations that the President has made and asks the 
Senate to agree with. So there is usually a list of these executive 
nominations.
  I have become particularly concerned in recent weeks that this list 
has grown and grown and grown. In fact, there are now 79 appointments 
that the President has made, nominations that the President has made, 
that have been approved by the various committees of the Senate but 
have not been brought up and voted on here in the Senate itself.
  That, to me, is an unfortunate result and one with which we need to 
concern ourselves.
  I want to particularly talk about five of these nominations for 
important offices in the Department of Energy. We have Secretary of 
Energy Steven Chu coming before the Energy Committee on Thursday to 
talk about the President's proposed budget as it affects the Department 
of Energy in the upcoming year. These are nominations for management 
positions in his Department, he is very much in favor of us moving 
ahead.
  Each of these offices--these five I am talking about here--has 
important responsibilities. Together, the five of them make up a large 
part of the management structure of the Department of Energy.
  A frequent observation I hear on the Senate floor about energy policy 
in our country is that the United States needs to have an ``all of the 
above'' approach to energy. I do not know how we can execute an ``all 
of the above'' strategy for energy when we have vacancies in the key 
government offices that oversee fossil energy, nuclear energy, 
renewable energy, energy efficiency, small and minority business access 
to energy programs, and we have a vacancy in the legal counsel office 
for the Department of Energy as well.
  The President has nominated five outstanding individuals to fill 
these ``all of the above'' energy posts. Our committee, the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee, held hearings on each of the nominees, has 
examined their qualifications, and I am pleased to report that the 
committee reported all five of these nominees unanimously, recommending 
to the full Senate that we approve them.
  The most senior of the five positions is the office of the Under 
Secretary of Energy. The Under Secretary's responsibilities include 
energy efficiency, renewable energy, fossil energy, nuclear energy, and 
electricity. This position has been vacant for nearly a year and a 
half. The President has nominated Dr. Arun Majumdar to this important 
post. Dr. Majumdar is currently the Director of ARPA-E, the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency located at the Department of Energy.
  The Senate confirmed Dr. Majumdar to the position he now holds at 
ARPA-E as the Director of ARPA-E in October of 2009. He is currently 
serving as the Under Secretary on an acting basis, and serving as 
Secretary Chu's senior adviser.
  Dr. Majumdar is a highly distinguished scientist and engineer. Before 
he came to Washington, he was the associate laboratory director for 
Energy and Environment at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He was 
a professor of mechanical engineering and materials sciences and 
engineering at The University of California at Berkeley. He holds a 
dozen patents. He has authored close to 200 scientific papers. He has 
served as an adviser to both the National Science Foundation and the 
President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, as well as 
startup companies and venture capital firms in Silicon Valley. He holds 
a doctorate from UC Berkeley, and he is a member of the National 
Academy of Engineering.
  So it is clear to anyone who looks at his qualifications that he is 
an eminently qualified scientist, and, frankly, we are very fortunate 
to have someone of his caliber willing to serve as the Under Secretary 
of Energy.
  The second nomination I want to talk about is for the general 
counsel's position at the Department. This is, of course, the 
Department's top legal officer. This position has been vacant since 
last March--nearly a year. The President has nominated Gregory Woods to 
be the general counsel. Mr. Woods is currently the deputy general

[[Page S604]]

counsel in the Department of Transportation. He was previously a 
partner in a New York law firm. He was a trial lawyer in the Department 
of Justice before that.
  The third office I want to speak about is the Assistant Secretary for 
Fossil Energy. This important office is responsible for research and 
development programs that cover coal, oil, and natural gas. It is a 
position that has been vacant for over a year.
  The President has nominated Charles McConnell to be the next 
Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. Mr. McConnell is currently the 
Chief Operating Officer of the Office of Fossil Energy. Before coming 
to the Department of Energy, he spent 2 years as a vice president at 
Battelle Energy Technology and 31 years before that at Praxair, Inc., a 
Fortune 500 company that produces industrial gases.
  The fourth vacant office I want to speak briefly about is that of the 
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This 
office is responsible for programs designed to increase the production 
and use of solar and wind and geothermal and biomass and hydrogen and 
ethanol fuels, for improving energy efficiency in the transportation 
and building and industrial and utility sectors, and for administering 
programs that provide financial assistance to State energy programs and 
weatherization for low-income housing.
  For this position, the President has nominated Dr. David Danielson. 
Dr. Danielson is currently a program director at ARPA-E. Before that he 
was a clean energy venture capitalist specializing in financing of 
solar and wind and biofuels and carbon capture and storage and advanced 
lighting projects. He holds a doctorate in material science and 
engineering from MIT.
  The fifth and final office I want to mention is that of the Director 
of Minority Economic Impact, which is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on the effects of energy policies on minority business 
enterprises and educational institutions and communities and on ways to 
ensure that minorities are afforded an opportunity to participate fully 
in the Department's programs. This position has been vacant for nearly 
2 years.
  The President has nominated LaDoris Harris to head the office. Ms. 
Harris is currently the president and chief executive officer of Jabo 
Industries, a minority-woman-owned management consulting firm that 
specializes in energy and information technology and the health care 
industry. She has previously been an executive with General Electric 
and has held executive and management positions at ABB and at 
Westinghouse before that.
  All five of these nominees are outstanding individuals who are 
especially well-qualified for the positions for which they have been 
nominated. These are important positions. They need to be filled. All 
five nominations were unanimously reported, as I indicated before, by 
our Energy and Natural Resources Committee this last fall. Four of them 
have been on the calendar--the Senate's Executive Calendar--since 
November 10. The fifth was added on December 15.
  I am not aware of a single objection that has been raised--any 
objection on any substantive basis for any one of these. In my view, 
they all deserve to be confirmed, and Secretary Chu deserves to have 
them confirmed so that he can implement the policies and the laws we 
are enacting in a responsible way.
  I will ask consent now to go ahead and approve these nominees and see 
if we can get at least these 5 out of the 79 who are on the Executive 
Calendar approved. Hopefully, that will allow Senators to see that 
there is a way to get some of these executive nominees approved as 
well.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session 
to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 493, 494, 495, 
496, and 527; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
interviewing action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the 
Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would 
like to accommodate the President and these nominees. I think the 
chairman, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, has made very good 
points about their qualifications. But I would be remiss if I did not 
rise in support of 1,200 jobs in Paducah, KY, which are threatened to 
be lost because the Department of Energy is refusing to address the 
situation.
  We have a company that has 1,200 jobs in Paducah, KY, which enriches 
uranium. For 50 years uranium has been accumulating, and it sits on the 
ground as a waste product. We could recycle this. It is a green 
project. It costs no taxes. In fact, it will actually bring back money 
to the Treasury.
  What I would like is help from the chairman as well as the President 
as well as Secretary Chu on this issue. I have written to Secretary 
Chu, and we have not heard back. This is very important to us. We are 
in the midst of a great recession, and 1,200 people are destined to 
lose their jobs. Once again, this does not cause any spending. It does 
not cost any taxes. Actually, if you would allow us to reenrich this 
uranium, it would bring money back to the Treasury. That is my reason 
for holding this. I would hope that we could find some reason and means 
to accommodate each other.

  Until that time, I would continue to object to these nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, maybe if I could just be clear as to 
exactly what action the Senator from Kentucky is requesting of the 
Secretary--I know he indicated that he had contacted the Secretary or 
written to the Secretary and had not heard back. But is there some 
specific action that the Secretary is being asked to take that we can 
clarify so that we would know whether this is a request that could be 
accommodated?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, in response to that question, yes. The 
government owns the uranium. It has been sitting there for 50 years. It 
is my understanding that the Department of Energy or the President 
could at any time sign a statement saying that uranium can be enriched.
  It is completely under his prerogative and 1,200 jobs could be saved. 
These are good-paying jobs. Many of these are union jobs. These are 
people I would like to help in my State. It does not cost the 
government anything. It does not cost the taxpayers anything. In fact, 
it uses a waste product that is sitting on the ground. We had an 
agreement. We have worked with United Uranium Mine Workers. We have 
worked with Senators and Congressmen from different States to try to 
get this figured out. But all it takes is a signature from the 
Department of Energy to allow them to enrich this uranium.
  The Defense Department has written statements saying they could use 
this uranium. The GAO has said this is the best use of this waste 
product. But I believe the Secretary of Energy, through a stroke of the 
pen, could save these 1,200 jobs. That is what I am asking for help 
with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me just indicate to my colleague 
from Kentucky that I am encouraged to hear that this is an action that 
could be taken without any cost to the taxpayer. I think that is 
obviously important.
  I do not know all of the arguments for and against the action the 
Senator is advocating or requesting. But we certainly will look into 
that.
  Let me ask one additional question, if I could. If we are able to 
accommodate the Senator from Kentucky with regard to this request he 
has made to the Secretary of Energy, is that the only objection he is 
aware of to the approval of these five nominees or are we going to have 
additional Senators coming to the floor raising additional objections 
in the future, even if this action is taken?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

[[Page S605]]

  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, this is my only objection. If the Senator 
were to help me save these 1,200 jobs, we would erect a monument to him 
in Kentucky. This is a big deal for us. It does not cost anything. I 
would do everything within my power to make sure there is no objection 
on our side. I think it is the President's prerogative. I will help 
facilitate this process as soon as possible. This would be huge for us 
in Kentucky if we could save these jobs.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, obviously, I do not want a monument 
erected to me in Kentucky. But I do appreciate the Senator from 
Kentucky indicating his commitment to help get these nominees approved 
if some accommodation could be found for his concerns. As I say, I have 
no knowledge of this particular issue. I do not know whether the 
request the Senator from Kentucky is making is within the realm of 
possibility.
  We will certainly go as far as to investigate the issue and try to 
get a response back to the Senator as to the Department of Energy view 
on this issue. That much I can certainly commit to the Senator from 
Kentucky. But I appreciate his willingness to discuss this issue on the 
Senate floor. I also very much, as I said before, appreciate his 
commitment to help us get these nominees approved if some accommodation 
of his concerns can be agreed upon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                          Keystone XL Pipeline

  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak on the issue of energy 
security for our Nation. I have filed legislation which would approve 
the Keystone XL Pipeline. I filed our bill as an amendment to the 
highway bill. That bill is the Hoeven-Lugar-Vitter-McConnell-Johanns-
Hatch bill. But it actually includes 45 Senators as cosponsors of the 
legislation. As I said, I filed it now as an amendment to the highway 
bill.
  The fact is Congress needs to act. The administration, after more 
than 3 years, has decided not to act--evidently will not act on this 
important issue. So we in Congress need to.
  This highway bill provides a tremendous opportunity. The highway bill 
is about infrastructure, vital infrastructure for our country. That is 
exactly what the Keystone XL Pipeline is. It is vital infrastructure 
that is very much needed by our country.
  Look at gas prices today. According to the Lundberg Survey or AAA, 
gas prices are now more than $3.50 a gallon. That is the highest they 
have been at this time of year ever--more than $3.50 a gallon.
  Since President Obama took office, gas prices are up 88 percent. They 
are up 88 percent. That is even though demand is down. We are using 
less. Demand in the United States for gasoline is down by 5 percent. 
Yet we are seeing record high gas prices. AAA is now projecting that 
gasoline will go to $4 a gallon by Memorial Day.
  Some are saying we could see $5 gasoline this year--$5 a gallon. Why 
is that? All we have to do is look to the Middle East to understand 
what is going on. With the turmoil there, Iran is threatening to 
blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Something like between one-fifth and 
one-sixth of all the seaborne oil in the world goes through the Strait 
of Hormuz. So we can imagine what would happen if Iran blockaded that 
strait.
  Why are we continuing to get oil from the Middle East and places such 
as Venezuela? Nearly 30 percent of the crude we use comes from places 
such as the Middle East and Venezuela. Why? Why are we doing that when 
we don't have to? We don't have to. Why not produce that oil in this 
country and get it from our closest friend and our strongest trading 
partner, Canada?
  The reality is, we can have North American energy independence. We 
absolutely can do it. I believe we can do it within the next 5 years. 
In my home State of North Dakota, we now produce 535,000 barrels a day 
of light sweet Bakken crude oil. But the problem we have is we cannot 
get it to market. In the last 5 years, we have increased production 
from about 100,000 barrels a day to more than 500,000 barrels a day, 
and it is continuing to grow. But we need pipelines to get that product 
to refineries in the United States. That is what the Keystone XL would 
do. More than 100,000 barrels a day of our oil would go into the 
Keystone Pipeline to get it to refineries.
  From Canada, 700,000 barrels a day would go into the Keystone XL 
Pipeline. So we are talking about 830,000 barrels a day that would go 
through the Keystone XL Pipeline, which we would not need to get from 
the Middle East.
  Between the United States and Canada, and some from Mexico, building 
infrastructure such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, we can produce more 
than 75 percent of the crude oil we need in our country, and that is 
growing. When I talk about North American oil independence or North 
American energy independence, that is very attainable. It is something 
we can absolutely do, but we need the infrastructure to do it.
  Today, in North Dakota, light sweet Bakken crude is suffering a 
discount of $27 a barrel. Our oil is suffering a discount of $27 a 
barrel because we are constrained by pipeline capacity. In Canada, 
Syncrude is suffering a discount of $21 a barrel because of that 
pipeline capacity. Even in Cushing, OK, a hub for oil in this country, 
oil has been discounted because it cannot move to the refineries 
because we lack the pipeline capacity.
  But even with these bottlenecks, as I have pointed out, these 
discounts at the pump, consumers and businesses are paying more than 
$3.50 a gallon. The bottlenecks create those constraints. Think of the 
impact on our economy and to our consumers. There are other impacts as 
well. For example, in North Dakota, we have more truck traffic on our 
western highways than ever before. That means more fatalities, more 
traffic accidents. It also means a lot more wear and tear on our 
infrastructure. So we are talking about a highway bill to maintain and 
improve our highway infrastructure throughout the country, and in my 
State our roads are getting worn out by all that truck traffic. The 
Keystone XL Pipeline alone would reduce the truck traffic on our 
highways just in North Dakota by 17 million truck miles a year. Again, 
that is 17 million truck miles a year--all that without one penny of 
government spending, not one penny of Federal Government spending. So 
it is a $7 billion private investment in enhancing our infrastructure 
that would not cost us a penny.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline will create needed infrastructure, tens of 
thousands of jobs, more energy security for our Nation, and millions in 
tax revenues, all with no government spending. The U.S. Department of 
Energy said the Keystone XL Pipeline will lower gas prices--not ``may'' 
but ``will''--for the east coast, the gulf coast and the Midwest. But 
the Obama administration says no.
  So the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, goes to China last 
week. While there, he met with President Hu Jintao of China about 
selling Canadian oil to China. Prime Minister Harper said this in The 
Gazette:

       We are an emerging energy superpower. . . . We have 
     abundant supplies of virtually every form of energy. And you 
     know, we want to sell our energy to people who want to buy 
     our energy. It's that simple.

  He also spoke of ``a new era in a strategic Canada-China energy 
partnership.'' To the United States, he said:

       If you don't want Canadian oil sand crude, China is a 
     waiting customer.

  To back it up, he returned with a memorandum of understanding from 
China to develop energy sales from Canada to China.
  To those who don't think the Canadian oil sands are going to be 
produced, that is wrong. They are going to be produced. This oil will 
be produced. The issue is whether it is going to go to China or come to 
the United States. The reality is, if it goes to China, it will be 
worse environmental stewardship. If it comes to the United States, 
there will be better environmental stewardship.
  Let's talk about that for a minute. First off, if it comes from the 
United States in a pipeline instead of going to China, we don't have to 
haul it in tankers across the ocean, which produces greenhouse gas. The 
oil going to China creates more greenhouse gas because we have to haul 
it to China.
  Second, if we are not getting it in the pipeline, we are going to 
have to continue to have tanker loads coming here from the Middle East 
and Venezuela--again, producing more greenhouse gas.

[[Page S606]]

  Third, we have the best refineries in the world. We have the highest 
standards and the lowest emissions in our refineries. Instead, this oil 
will go to China, where they have more emissions and more greenhouse 
gas. That is worse environmental stewardship by sending it to China, 
not better.
  Another point. Eighty percent of new production in the Canadian oil 
sands is in situ. That means drilling down to bring up the oil, as we 
do with conventional oil, not excavating, as they have done 
historically but drilling or in situ, which has the same impact on 
greenhouse emissions as conventional drilling. So 80 percent of the new 
development is in situ, with the same impact as conventional drilling.
  That is the real solution. The real solution is using better 
technology to not only produce more energy but with better 
environmental stewardship. That is the real solution, and it means jobs 
and energy independence for North America.

  Finally, on the issue of reexporting the oil, the issue has been 
brought up that, OK, if we bring the oil in from Canada, it will just 
get exported to some other country and not be utilized in the United 
States. But 99 percent of the crude in the United States is refined 
here; 97 percent of the gasoline refined in the United States is used 
in the United States; 90 percent of the transportation fuel refined in 
the United States is used in the United States. We need this oil. We 
need the refined product.
  The reality is, for the small amount exported--think about that. For 
that, we get jobs, and we get dollars for our economy. Think about it 
like manufacturing for just a minute. Refining is a process. We take 
crude oil, refine it, and we have a finished product, a refined 
product. Similar to manufacturing, we take inputs and manufacture and 
we have a finished good. Would anybody, for a minute, argue that we 
don't want to manufacture products in the United States and send them 
overseas? Of course we do because we get jobs and wealth from that, 
don't we? In other words, we want to manufacture and process goods in 
the United States, and when we export them, we get value, we get jobs, 
and we get a growing economy.
  What is going on with this argument? If we think about this argument 
in the simplest form--for those who say we don't want to build the 
pipeline because some product might get exported, stop and think for a 
minute. If we don't build the pipeline, all the oil goes to China; none 
of it comes here. So we are worried that some might get exported? That 
makes no sense. None.
  I will wrap up. The reality is this: Whether we measure it by jobs or 
whether we measure it by energy security for this Nation--national 
security with what is going on in the Middle East--or whether we 
measure it from an environmental stewardship standpoint, it absolutely 
makes sense to develop this infrastructure. This is an important step 
in the right direction toward North American energy security. There is 
a lot more we need to do, but the reality is we can get there with this 
kind of private investment by creating the right environment for that. 
With the infrastructure and steps we need to take, we can get to energy 
security. It is time for Congress to step forward and act.
  This is vitally important infrastructure for our country. This is a 
vitally important step in terms of national security for the American 
people.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kyl pertaining to the introduction of S. 2109 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                             The SUGAR Act

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I know this comes as no surprise to you, 
but today is Valentine's Day. Today millions of Americans are buying 
flowers and candy for their loved ones to celebrate Valentine's Day. 
This is an important day for American businesses, especially candy 
manufacturers. Consumers will purchase over 36 million heart-shaped 
boxes of chocolates for Valentine's Day.
  Unfortunately, the price American candy manufacturers must pay for 
this sugar leaves a very bitter taste in their mouths. Why, you ask. 
Well, because these companies face artificially high prices for sugar, 
about twice the world average. That is because there is an outdated and 
unnecessary government program that keeps sugar prices significantly 
higher than they should be.
  It is programs such as these sugar subsidies that reflect people's 
frustration with what is going on here in Washington because the sugar 
program, like too many other subsidies, protects special interests at 
the expense of regular businesses and consumers. That is why I joined 
with Senator Mark Kirk on Valentine's Day last year to encourage our 
colleagues to join us in supporting our bipartisan SUGAR Act.
  The SUGAR Act would phase out the U.S. sugar program, which costs 
businesses and consumers about $4 billion a year. This is a big concern 
for us in New Hampshire as we are the American home of Lindt chocolate 
as well as a number of other smaller candy companies that use a lot of 
sugar. I know it is a concern for the President, who has Hershey's 
chocolate in his home State of Pennsylvania, and it is a big concern 
for Illinois, where Senator Kirk is from, because they have so many 
candy companies.
  This legislation isn't about Democrats or Republicans. This 
legislation is about ending a bad deal for businesses and consumers. 
Senator Kirk and I sponsored this legislation because we need to end 
the sweetheart deal for the sugar industry. There is simply no reason 
to continue a program that makes candy makers, bakers, and other food 
manufacturers in our States pay double the world average price for 
sugar.
  One of the other fallouts from these high sugar prices is that it 
costs jobs. For every one job we save in the sugar industry because of 
these subsidies, we are losing three manufacturing jobs.
  Today, as we celebrate Valentine's Day, my thoughts are with Senator 
Kirk, who continues to recover from a serious illness. While Senator 
Kirk couldn't be with us this Valentine's Day, I do wish him well, and 
I look forward to his speedy return to the Senate. I know he is focused 
on getting better so that he will be able to get back here to work for 
his constituents from Illinois.
  It has been my pleasure to work with Senator Kirk on this bipartisan 
legislation. I look forward to our continued work in the future on the 
SUGAR Act and on other matters that help our constituents in New 
Hampshire and Illinois.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business for 
up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Tribute to Claire Griffin

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the dedicated 
service of one of my team members, Claire Griffin. Claire retired this 
January after a long and eventful career. She stuck with me through 
thick and thin, from when I was a newly elected State representative to 
the speakership of the Oregon House, to my service here in the Senate.
  I first met Claire in 1998 at a candidate training event when I was 
running for the Oregon House. Claire came as the campaign manager for 
another candidate who was running in a tough race for an open seat. 
Claire and her candidate kept making key points, responding to all the 
questions being

[[Page S607]]

asked about how one would run their campaign. I just kept thinking: I 
am in so much trouble. I wish I had it together--like the two of them.
  They were enormously outspent in their race and did not win but 
finished respectably. It was just after the election that the candidate 
called me and encouraged me to hire Claire for my team, so I did. Thus 
began a wonderful 13-year partnership.
  One of the first things I got to know about Claire was that, while 
she had moved to Oregon, she was steeped in California politics. Her 
face would light up with stories from her California days. Jesse Unruh, 
former California assemblyman, treasurer, and speaker figured 
prominently in these stories. The underlying theme of these stories 
was, if I had just a fraction of Speaker Unruh's political smarts, we 
could get a lot more done.
  Fortunately, Claire did what she could to help provide those 
political smarts for me. During these years I was working full time for 
the World Affairs Council of Oregon, in addition to serving as a 
legislator in the citizen legislator system in Oregon. This greatly 
increased Claire's workload and, on pretty much a daily basis, it 
increased her blood pressure. I don't know how I would have gotten 
through those years without her extraordinary diligence.
  I kept hearing from constituents how promptly Claire responded when 
they called my legislative office. In fact, I think a good share of the 
folks in my Oregon House district thought Claire was the State 
representative and I was assisting her.
  Then, in 2003, our collective experience took a big turn. The good 
news for Claire was that I resigned from my day job as director of the 
World Affairs Council of Oregon, and I could finally devote myself 
fully to my responsibilities as a State legislator. The bad news for 
her blood pressure was that I also decided to make a long-shot bid to 
be House Democratic leader.
  Claire always said she was sure I would win. I, on the other hand, 
was equally sure I would not win. But as so often has proved the case 
over time, Claire was right and I was wrong.
  When the first day of voting arrived, it became clear after the first 
ballot that the race was going to be a close three-way contest, and in 
the next two rounds of voting one of us won and the other two tied and 
nobody was out of the race, so the voting continued. I finally won on 
the fifth ballot, bringing a new challenge for Claire, developing a 
strong working relationship with the entire House Democratic 
leadership.
  Over the next 3 years, Claire had to hear me obsess over the 
challenge of recruiting candidates in 60 districts, raising funds, 
developing a policy agenda, and overcoming the sometimes dramatic ups 
and downs of a State legislature. But together we soldiered on.
  Starting in the 2005 session, Claire took on a new duty, the 
essential task of training and mentoring the Democratic legislative 
assistants. Just as she had impressed me in that first fortuitous 
meeting in 1998, she impressed her new trainees. Many of the LAs would 
stop me in the halls of the capitol in Salem, OR, and give thanks for 
her down-to-earth training and support.
  In 2007, our world changed again when I became speaker of the house. 
As always, Claire was the rock of our operation, even as I assumed my 
new duties and then, shortly after the 2007 session, took on the long-
shot race of running for the U.S. Senate.
  When I was elected to the Senate in 2008, Claire applied her enormous 
skills to lead my casework team. She and her team have done an amazing 
job. If you would like to see proof, just visit her office in Portland. 
The wall is covered in multitudes of thank-you notes.
  Recently, I received this letter from a constituent:

       Senator, you hardly need one of your constituents to tell 
     you how great your staff operates but I must try. I recently 
     had a problem with government bureaucracy and I was beyond 
     frustration. Then, 2 years ago, I contacted your office and 
     was put in contact with Claire Griffin. I may have found my 
     government to be unresponsive before this, but from that day 
     forward I had been amazed. . . . My issue did not even affect 
     very many people, but Claire did not let those facts guide 
     her efforts. . . .
       From the very beginning, she made me feel that my problem 
     was worthy of her total effort. . . . In the end, Claire 
     brought the ``mountain to me'' and a large part of my problem 
     was resolved. . . . The frustration that I experienced for so 
     many years with an unresponsive government has been lifted 
     through [her] actions.

  Like so many other letters through the years, it closed by thanking 
Claire.
  For the past 13 years I have always appreciated Claire's dedication 
as a staff member, but I have been equally blessed to know her as a 
person. If anyone should doubt, I can testify that Claire has been the 
funniest person in Oregon politics. She wields her wit like a sword, 
and sometimes it stings. But you can't help but smile even when her 
comments make you smart.
  She made it, in part, her job to make sure the various offices did 
not go to my head, and she was very good at this. When she trained 
legislative assistants in Salem, she made sure they were trained in how 
to keep their bosses from taking their offices too much to their 
headbands.
  Claire has been a full member of my and Mary's extended family. She 
joined the team when my son Jonathan was 2 years old and my daughter 
Brynn was a newborn. She has stepped in to cut down the mountains and 
fill in the valleys, all along this 13-year journey. She gave my son 
Jonathan the best gift he ever had, a box of eight classic adventure 
novels rewritten for a little tyke to read. He enjoyed them immensely. 
She rescued me when I forgot my I.D. card and could not get through 
airport security. As you can imagine, over the years she has been there 
through one crisis, one challenge after another.
  Claire, I couldn't have done it without you. My family could not have 
done it without you. Thank you for joining our team and our family and 
working so hard to make this journey a success.
  Claire, you have carried on the fight to build a better world, and 
you have carried on that fight with heart and humor. Thank you. We will 
miss you. Please enjoy your well-earned retirement and, of course, keep 
in touch. You will always be a valued member of Team Merkley.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                                Adoption

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, that was a beautiful tribute by my 
colleague.
  I come to the floor to just speak for a few minutes while we are 
trying to figure a way forward on a very important piece of legislation 
having to do with the transportation infrastructure for our Nation. I 
know it is a bill that Senator Boxer, as the chair of the EPW 
Committee, has worked on tirelessly for years along with Senator 
Inhofe. It is a very important piece of legislation authorizing 
billions of dollars of programs and projects. I really want to say that 
I appreciate her leadership so much.
  I was so hoping the Republican leadership and the Democratic 
leadership could come together so sometime in the next few days we 
could have some votes relative to this important legislation and move 
forward because I know for the people I represent in Louisiana, this is 
one of our most important infrastructure bills.
  I am sure, Mr. President, you have many people in Pennsylvania 
talking with you about the importance of getting these road projects 
authorized. At a time when people are looking for jobs and looking for 
work, this would be one of the bills we would like to pass. Let's all 
be patient but not too patient, to get this through because it is very 
important.
  While we are waiting for that, I thought I would come to the floor on 
this very special day, Valentines Day, to talk about a very special 
kind of love that happens between children and parents. Mr. President, 
you know because you have been a wonderful leader, along with many 
others here on the Senate floor, for the idea that every child deserves 
a protective family and that children do not do a very good job of 
raising themselves. Governments do not do a good job of raising 
children. Children need to be raised in a family. Children should be 
with their siblings whenever possible, raised in the protective arms 
and under the watchful eye of parents--at least one responsible adult.
  Mr. President, you know how heartbreaking it is on every day, but 
particularly a day like today when we are sending cards to our loved 
ones. I know the first call I made this morning was

[[Page S608]]

to my husband and to my children to wish them a Happy Valentines--
people are doing that all over the world today. In fact, I was given 
some very interesting information.
  I had no idea that 180 million Valentine cards were purchased today--
that is pretty amazing--200 million roses were sold today, and 36 
million heart-shaped boxes of chocolate will be eaten today. I have not 
gotten my box of chocolate; I don't know if you have. I am still 
looking for mine.
  But the sad thing is, there are millions of children who are not 
going to receive a phone call today. They are not going to receive a 
card. They will not receive a box of chocolates, and they may not even 
receive a pat on the head or a hug or a word of encouragement because 
they are orphans.
  These are children who live all over the world and in our own 
country, sad to say. We have about 100,000 children in our foster care 
system whose parents have had their biological rights terminated 
because of either gross neglect or abuse, children who are waiting for 
another family to step up. The Presiding Officer has been very active 
and successful in passing the adoption tax credit provision that 
provides some financial assistance to families who are stepping forward 
to adopt children in need in our own country and around the world.
  There are 100,000 children waiting for that Valentines card or that 
box of chocolate or a hug or just to belong to a family. Around the 
world, we don't even know what those numbers are. They are 
overwhelming. We know that in countries that have a high incidence of 
AIDS, for instance, that causes the death of a parent, particularly a 
mom--a dad as well--really that leaves sometimes families of eight 
children, nine children, six children abandoned. Even if a grandmother 
steps in to try to do that work and she dies within a few years, what 
happens to these children?
  Well, the Presiding Officer, along with many of my colleagues here, I 
am proud to say, has introduced a resolution today. I wish to thank my 
cosponsors, particularly Senator Lugar, who has been a terrific 
advocate as the former chair and now ranking member of the Foreign 
Relations Committee; Senator Klobuchar; Senator Grassley, who is my 
cochair on the foster care caucus; Senator Gillibrand; Senator Inhofe, 
who has probably traveled to more countries--more times to Africa than 
any Senator in the history of our country, and he should be commended 
for the work he is doing on that continent; and Senator Blumenthal and 
Senator Boozman, who have been outstanding advocates in their own right 
for different aspects of family policy. We are proud to submit a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. Of course, this does not have the force of 
law, but it most certainly expresses our views as a body and does have 
impact on policymakers around the world, nonprofits, the faith-based 
community, the private sector, and, most importantly, governments 
around the world.
  People would say: What does the Senate think about this, Senator? You 
say this, but what do the other Senators think about the fact of 
adoption or international adoption? Do they agree with you that 
children belong in a family? Because it is sad to say that there are 
some places in this world that think children can grow up fine in an 
institution or they can grow up fine without parents. Now, we don't 
think that in the United States. Not only do our hearts and our minds 
and our faith tell us otherwise, but the science also says that 
children who grow up in a family of loving nurturing, particularly in 
the early years--we know this is true raising our own children; I know 
this as a mother--every year but particularly those early years get the 
confidence and the affirmation of kindness and gentleness from a 
parent.
  I have been learning more about this lately, not only how important 
it is, but what I have been learning about is what the science says 
when children don't get that. The term that the American Academy of 
Pediatrics just released calls it toxic stress--toxic stress on the 
brain of an infant. They underline how even one caring and supportive 
relationship with an adult in those early years is so important that it 
can offset the damaging neurological and physiological affects of 
stress on children. I know adults have stress because I have it myself. 
What I didn't realize was that infants--the tiniest little infants--can 
have toxic stress that affects the development of their brain and their 
ability to function.
  I hope our country will realize how important it is for us to do a 
better job of connecting orphans and abandoned infants and neglected 
children of all ages--not to put them in an institution, not to turn 
them out on the street, not to allow them to be trafficked by drug 
cartels or sex traders or people who will exploit them for other 
purposes, but to put them in the arms of a loving family, connecting 
them to a loving and responsible adult.
  Of course, we try to keep children in their own biological families 
when possible, but if war or disease or death separates them, why don't 
we think that it is the most important thing in the world--because it 
is--to connect those children to a loving family?
  That is what this resolution says. It is just as simple as we can say 
it on Valentines Day: For kids who will never get a kiss or a box of 
chocolates or who haven't yet, there is still hope that we can give 
them a protective family, that we can protect these sibling groups. If 
government would work just a little bit smarter, not even necessarily 
throwing that much more money at it, although I find we can always use 
a little extra, but just working smarter and better and working with 
the churches, working with faith-based communities around the world, we 
can connect children to families. That is all this resolution says. It 
expresses the sense of the Senate. I hope we can pass this by unanimous 
consent.
  So when I travel around the world, as I do often, when I am in 
Guatemala or when I am in Uganda or when I have been in places such as 
Russia and in China, and the Senators there or the members or the 
people, the leaders, ask me, ``What do the other Senators say? Do they 
believe this as well?'' I can say, ``Absolutely.'' I am going to carry 
this resolution with me, and I will show it to them because all this 
resolution says is that every child in the world deserves a protective 
and loving family.
  So I don't know if Valentines Day will be perfect for many children. 
I hope my children have had a wonderful day today. But we can work a 
little harder to try to do our best to make sure they have at least one 
caring, nurturing, loving adult in their life. It would make a world of 
difference in our school systems, in our health care systems, in our 
criminal justice system. It will make our communities stronger. It will 
make our States and our Nation stronger and ultimately the world. I 
know the Presiding Officer believes that.
  I thank the leadership for allowing me to come to the floor and speak 
on this today, and hopefully all of my colleagues will vote favorably 
for this Senate resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  National Crime Victims' Rights Week

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I expect that a resolution authorizing 
National Crime Victims' Rights Week will be adopted unanimously by the 
Senate in a few moments. I wanted to come to the floor today and 
reaffirm my support for the rights and needs of survivors of crime. I 
also wanted to express my gratitude to the dedicated advocates of crime 
victims as well as the health and law enforcement professionals who 
work to fight crime and help its victims recover.
  Keeping our neighborhoods and communities safe is and will always be 
a top priority of this country. But close to 20 million Americans are 
victims of crime each year, and these individuals and their families 
are confronted with unique and difficult challenges. Acts of crime 
inflict lasting physical, emotional, and psychological wounds that take 
time and care to heal. It is important that the necessary resources and 
services be available to help rebuild the lives of crime survivors.

[[Page S609]]

  National Crime Victims' Rights Week, which our Nation has 
commemorated annually for the last 30 years, renews our commitment to 
those impacted by crime and the ways we can help them move forward. It 
is a time for remembrance and reflection, a moment to pause and honor 
victims, advocates, professionals, and volunteers.
  This year's theme is ambitious but critical: ``Extending the Vision: 
Reaching Every Victim.'' This calls on each of us to make sure that all 
victims get the help they need. Too many victims are still unable to 
receive the protections and services they deserve. Our efforts toward 
better safety and security now are integral to ensuring the safety and 
security of future generations.
  On April 8, 1981, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed the first Crime 
Victims' Rights Week. As a former prosecutor myself, I remember when 
the concept of victims' rights was practically unknown as few 
mechanisms for victim assistance and support even existed. With this 
first proclamation, President Reagan fulfilled an important and long-
awaited call to put the concerns and rights of crime victims on the 
national agenda.
  As President Reagan said in the first proclamation in 1981:

       We need a renewed emphasis on and an enhanced sensitivity 
     to the rights of victims. These rights should be a central 
     concern of those who participate in the criminal justice 
     system, and it is time all of us paid greater heed to the 
     plight of victims.

  This pioneering vision of President Reagan is one we continue to 
embrace today.
  We are blessed to live in a nation of Good Samaritans, and we have 
achieved impressive strides toward helping crime victims get the 
services they need. But the task of preventing crime and healing its 
harmful effects remains a constant battle. Technology, globalization, 
and new types of criminal behavior have made the challenge before us 
more complex than ever before.
  Our fight against crime in the 21st century will take strategic 
partnerships at the local, State, and national levels. It will rely on 
supportive, vigilant, and compassionate communities and individuals. 
Serving these individuals is more than an act of kindness; it helps 
make all of our homes, neighborhoods, and communities safer and 
stronger.
  The resolution I have submitted with Senators Leahy, Schumer, and 
Grassley and which I expect to be passed today supports the mission and 
goals of this year's National Crime Victims' Rights Week. I urge my 
colleagues to continue supporting those who have suffered crimes' 
effects and a renewed commitment toward reducing crime during this 
week, which this year will be observed the week of April 22.
  In closing, we have come a long way since the days when crime victims 
had few rights and services. Yet it is also true that too many crimes 
are still committed and too few are reported and that many victims 
struggle to overcome the lasting effects of crime. I am pleased that 
National Crime Victims' Rights Week offers us the opportunity each year 
to highlight the needs of crime survivors, recognize those who help 
them, and engage the public in the fight for victims' rights.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________