[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9852-9873]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT EFFICIENCY AND STREAMLINING ACT OF 2011

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 679, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 679) to reduce the number of executive positions 
     subject to Senate confirmation.

  Pending:

       DeMint amendment No. 501, to repeal the authority to 
     provide certain loans to the International Monetary Fund, the 
     increase in the United States quota to the Fund, and certain 
     other related authorities, and rescind related appropriated 
     amounts;
       DeMint amendment No. 510, to strike the provision relating 
     to the Director, Bureau of Justice Statistics;
       DeMint amendment No. 511, to enhance accountability and 
     transparency among various Executive agencies;
       Vitter amendment No. 499, to end the appointments of 
     Presidential czars who have not been subject to the advice 
     and consent of the Senate and to prohibit funds for any 
     salaries and expenses for appointed czars;
       Coburn amendment No. 500, to prevent the creation of 
     duplicative and overlapping Federal programs;
       Portman amendment No. 509, to provide that the provisions 
     relating to the Assistant Secretary (Comptroller) of the 
     Navy, the Assistant Secretary (Comptroller) of the Army, and 
     the Assistant Secretary (Comptroller) of the Air Force, the 
     chief financial officer positions, and the Controller of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall not take effect;
       Cornyn amendment No. 504, to strike the provisions relating 
     to the Comptroller of the Army, the Comptroller of the Navy, 
     and the Comptroller of the Air Force.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be up to 
30 minutes of debate, with the Senator from Louisiana, the Senator from 
South Carolina, the Senator from Nevada, or his designee, and the 
Senator from Kentucky, or his designee, each controlling 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 499

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I would like to close on my czar amendment 
and encourage strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. President, we have a bill before us about the Senate advice and 
consent process--the Senate confirmation process--and I think it would 
be a tragedy to consider any bill on that subject and not, in fact, 
address the biggest issue, the biggest problem with that process that 
exists now--certainly also in the eyes of the American people--and that 
is the abuse by the Executive, over several administrations but 
culminating in this administration, of appointing so-called czars as an 
end run around the U.S. Constitution, as an end run around the powers 
of the Senate and the balance of power of advice and consent and 
confirmation.
  My amendment would fix that. It would defund czars and their offices. 
It is carefully crafted, it is carefully defined, and it would say we 
are not going to allow these czars to operate when they are essentially 
taking the place and the function of what should be a Senate-confirmed 
position. Again, the language is careful. It is carefully thought out, 
it is carefully crafted, and there are exceptions in the language which 
are important, so I commend all my colleagues to look at that. But the 
main point is simple and clear and important: We shouldn't allow any 
Executive, any administration, to end-run the U.S. Constitution, to 
end-run the Senate's important and appropriate role of confirmation, or 
advice and consent.

[[Page 9853]]

  So I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  In closing, I thank several Members who have cosponsored the 
amendment--Senators Paul and Heller and Grassley--and I also thank very 
much Senator Collins, who has been a leader on this effort and has 
freestanding legislation on the topic which I support. We have and will 
continue to consult on this issue until we properly get the job done.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally 
allocated to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President I ask that the quorum call be suspended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. I would like to speak on my amendment which will be voted 
on in a few minutes.


                           Amendment No. 510

  This amendment would strike the Director of the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics from the list of the Senate-confirmed positions that would 
be removed from the confirmation process. I wish to explain why this is 
important because this seems to be something that maybe would not be 
important to pull out from this long list of nominees who no longer 
need be confirmed. It is very important that this particular position, 
this nominee for this position, be vetted and confirmed by the Senate.
  It is often said statistics don't lie; people do. Particularly in 
this business, we have seen one set of statistics be interpreted and 
publicized in totally different ways, and that is why this position is 
so important. The role they have is critical. In a democracy and in a 
free country, one of the most important aspects to protect against is 
that risk of the government becoming a propaganda machine.
  I wish to read what this particular position does: The Bureau of 
Justice Statistics collects, analyzes, publishes, and disseminates 
information on crime, criminal offenders, crime victims, and criminal 
justice operations.
  It is very important. This information is acted on by local, State, 
and Federal officials. Lots of our laws are shaped and based on this 
information. Statistics are only as valuable as the reputation of the 
statistician, and that is what this position is.
  Every Member of this body knows how to write a question so you get 
the answer you want. If we are going to have a Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, don't we want the public to have some level of trust in the 
data they publish? If we just put some political hack in this 
position--as, unfortunately, has happened over administrations of both 
parties, not necessarily for this position but we know in some 
positions--it would totally discredit what this person does. So do we 
want the public to think they are cooking the books to promote policy 
ends on issues such as gun control, hate crimes, racial profiling, 
immigration, drug policy, and so forth? If we cannot absolutely trust 
the impartiality of the management of the Bureau, we should abolish it 
and give the money back to the taxpayers.
  We know we are $14 trillion in debt. Our Nation is on the brink of 
financial collapse. My constituents have no interest in borrowing money 
from the Chinese to fund the Bureau to compile crime statistics if we 
can't trust the numbers. If there is even a hint of bias of a political 
agenda or of the head of this Bureau being friendly to the perspective 
of whatever party is in the White House, then we should abolish the 
agency.
  In the past, those on the right have been suspicious that the Bureau 
of Justice Statistics has had a bias against gun rights and against the 
first amendment. Whether that is true, who knows. BJS statistics are 
used to form policy decisions. If the agency becomes a tool of the 
party in power, that will no longer be the case.
  When James Lynch, the nominee for the Director of the Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, was asked in his confirmation hearing what the 
biggest challenge for the Bureau of Justice Statistics moving forward 
was, he responded: ``I think the biggest challenges of the Bureau of 
Justice Statistics moving forward are the perennial challenges to a 
statistical agency; that is to say, to maintain its credibility as an 
independent Federal statistical agency.''
  It is important we hear that. It is important Americans hear that, 
and we will not have that opportunity if this position is no longer 
confirmed.
  It is not often that you hear a nominee suggest that the No. 1 
challenge he faces in assuming a position is to maintain the 
credibility and independence of the agency he is about to run. But, as 
Dr. Lynch said, that is the nature of a statistical agency, and it is 
precisely the reason why we should not remove this position from the 
confirmation process.
  The questions at the live hearing and the submitted written questions 
appropriately focused almost exclusively on this issue of credibility, 
independence, and accountability.
  How do we protect the Director from political influence and tampering 
by the executive? There was discussion about ways to restructure the 
office to make it more independent and further reinforce its 
independent roll. There was discussion of moving the director to a 6-
year term to further reinforce his independence, a proposal that the 
nominee supports. Of course, a 6-year term would imply Senate 
confirmation.
  In every way possible, the committee and nominee discussed ways to 
solidify the independence of the position and protect it from political 
influence. In the context of these discussions, it was once suggested 
that we remove the position from the confirmation process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 more 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. With all the nominees who are confirmed in the Senate 
with no debate or vote, it would seem the confirmation process is 
serving a purpose.
  First, there are things that happen behind the scenes to vet and 
review these nominees and their backgrounds. Unfortunately, as we have 
seen, the President, in some cases, with what we call czars in other 
positions and recess appointments, has sidestepped that. That has 
reduced the credibility in these positions, but let me just focus again 
on this one position.
  We never want the American Government to be accused of being a 
propaganda machine, as we see from governments all over the world. This 
one area of statistics, where they are disseminating information all 
over the country that so many respond to, needs to be credible and 
independent. I encourage my colleagues to keep this one position in the 
confirmation process so we will have an opportunity to make sure that, 
regardless of which party is in power, we have a credible, independent 
voice dealing with these statistics.
  I thank the President for yielding me a little more time. I yield 
back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 499

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Barrasso be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I just wish to indicate my support for 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana.
  Although it is drafted a little differently than I would have done 
it, it does address a real problem; that is, when the President--this 
President or any President--creates a new position within the White 
House that is duplicative of a Cabinet member's responsibilities, the 
result is we lose our ability to exercise accountability for the 
policies that individual comes up with. Let me give you a specific 
example.

[[Page 9854]]

  EPA is a Senate-Presidential appointee, Senate-confirmed position, 
the Administrator of the EPA. Yet President Obama created a position 
within the White House where there is essentially an environmental 
czar, and this individual--Carol Browner, who has since left, actually 
negotiated a deal with the automobile industry having to do with 
emissions. Well, the problem with that is, it is circumventing 
Congress's ability to hold accountable the person who is involved in 
making and coordinating that policy.
  What the Senator from Louisiana is trying to get at is the creation 
of these unaccountable czars within the White House who are doing the 
job that is supposed to be done by a Cabinet official, by a 
Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed official.
  So I support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New York is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before I get into the substance of my 
remarks, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous 
order, the vote in relation to the Vitter amendment No. 499 occur at 
12:30 and the vote in relation to the DeMint amendment No. 510 occur at 
2 p.m, with the remaining provisions of the previous order remaining in 
effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to make sure this has been cleared 
with the Senator from South Carolina?
  Mr. SCHUMER. It has.
  Ms. COLLINS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it is our intention to work on setting up 
additional votes this afternoon following the vote on the DeMint 
amendment No. 510.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered 
by my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter. As you know, the 
underlying bill is the product of a bipartisan gentlemen's agreement 
reached earlier this year that seeks to streamline and otherwise 
improve the efficiency of the Senate's confirmation process. The 
Senator from Maine, the Senator from Tennessee, the Senator from 
Connecticut, and myself, as well as the leaders, Leader Reid and Leader 
McConnell, have been heavily involved in this process.
  The amendment offered by Mr. Vitter runs counter to the spirit of 
comity behind this important bill. It is a poison pill designed to 
handcuff the President's ability to assemble a team of topflight 
advisers and aides. The amendment is nothing new. It has been 
introduced several times in several iterations.
  Now is the time to move forward. It is one of those moments when we 
can bridge the partisan divide and make the Senate a more efficient 
body. It is not the time or place to relitigate old and, frankly, silly 
political battles about so-called czars.
  It is our constitutionally mandated duty as Senators to ensure that 
the most important positions in government are confirmed in a timely 
manner. With the underlying bill, we finally begin to break the logjam 
that holds up senior positions by taking midlevel, nonpolicy positions 
off the docket.
  I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 510

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I also rise now because of the change in 
the time schedule to speak against the amendment offered by Mr. DeMint. 
Like the Vitter amendment, this amendment is opposed to the great 
spirit of comity behind the underlying bill.
  I would like to remind my colleague from South Carolina that the 
bipartisan working group labored over every decision we made. Far from 
lifting our index fingers to the wind, we carefully debated the nuances 
of the changes that were ultimately proposed.
  The change the Senator from South Carolina finds fault with involves 
the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Let me tell you about this position. 
The Director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports to the Senate-
confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice 
Programs, who then reports to the Senate-confirmed Associate Attorney 
General, who then reports to the Senate-confirmed Deputy Attorney 
General, who--you guessed it--reports to the Attorney General, also 
confirmed. How much more oversight do we need for one man? Is four 
levels of congressional oversight not enough?
  It is clear to me that this amendment is really designed to hamper 
our goal of improving the way the Senate functions. After all, there 
are four similar positions at the Department of Justice with parallel 
lines of reporting that we plan to remove from Senate confirmation, but 
the Senator from South Carolina does not take aim at those. Simply put, 
this is a prime example of the type of amendment that slows the Senate 
down, the type of amendment that is really aimed at preventing the 
passage of this bill.
  The number of Senate-confirmed positions has increased by hundreds 
over the last few decades. As you know, this proliferation has slowed 
the confirmation process to a near standstill. What used to be a 
flowing, functioning faucet now trickles.
  This position is one of those midlevel positions that should be 
removed to free up our process so we can focus our time on the 
positions that are more senior, that do not report to so many other 
levels of Senate-confirmed positions. Removing Senate confirmation for 
this position does not in any way weaken our constitutional advice and 
consent power or give any extra power to the President. This power was 
given to us to be used to confirm the most senior policymaking 
positions, and the President has power to appoint his midlevel and 
lower level appointees.
  I oppose this amendment, which will be voted on after our respective 
lunches, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning 
business for no more than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Currency Manipulation

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, last week Minority Leader Pelosi 
and some of her colleagues signaled their intention to introduce a 
discharge resolution for a vote on H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for 
Fair Trade Act. I applaud those in this body and in the House of 
Representatives who want to push on currency reform and encourage the 
Speaker and House leadership to support this position.
  Similar legislation to this passed overwhelmingly with strong 
bipartisanship in the last Congress. Senator Snowe from Maine and I 
introduced that legislation in the Senate. It would strengthen 
countervailing duty laws to consider undervalued currency as an unfair 
subsidy in determining duty rates.
  What does that mean? What that means is that in essence we have lost 
jobs in this country because too often the playing field in our trade 
relationship with the People's Republic of China is simply not level. 
We know that China in far too many cases subsidizes energy. We know 
they subsidize land. We know they subsidize capital. We know they 
subsidize production in various ways. We also know in terms of currency 
that China does not play fairly.

[[Page 9855]]

  When an industry such as the coated-paper industry in Hamilton, OH, 
in southwest Ohio, north of Cincinnati, or the aluminum industry in 
western Ohio, in Sidney, or the steel industry in Lorain, OH--when an 
industry petitions the International Trade Commission for relief 
against unfair subsidies, currency manipulation would be part of that 
investigation. That bill would make sure that happens. It is simple, it 
is straightforward, and it is achievable. It sends a signal to our 
trading partners that we will not accept unfair advantage over American 
workers and American businesses. I can't count the number of times--I 
know that in North Carolina the Presiding Officer has seen the same 
situation in textiles and other industries--where, simply put, American 
workers have trouble competing and American businesses have trouble 
selling their products because of unfair trade advantages that 
countries and companies in those countries have inflicted on the United 
States.
  Don't forget the stakes. We are all concerned about the budget 
deficit, to be sure, and we heard Senator Conrad earlier talking about 
that in a convincing and persuasive way. Cut the budget. Set it up long 
term, medium term. Don't do it right now, as Chairman Bernanke, a 
Republican appointee, says. That will cost us jobs. But build in 
deficit reductions. Think about the budget deficit, but don't forget 
the trade deficit.
  Over the last 10 years, particularly since most favored nation with 
China and NAFTA and the Bush administration's trade agenda on CAFTA and 
the other trade agreements and lack of enforcement on those trade 
agreements, we have seen job losses because of those trade agreements.
  President Bush once said that $1 billion in trade surplus or trade 
deficit translates into 13,000 jobs. Why is that? If you have a budget 
surplus of $1 billion, you have 13,000 more jobs in your country. If 
you have a trade deficit of $1 billion, you have 13,000 fewer. The 
reason is clear: If you have a $1 billion trade deficit, it means you 
are buying $1 billion worth of goods more from country X--China, let's 
say--than you are selling to China. That means $1 billion worth of more 
production is taking place in China than in the United States. That is 
OK, but when the numbers are hundreds of billions of dollars--our trade 
deficit is fluctuating between $400 and $750 billion, between $1 
billion a day and $2 billion a day--that is real jobs. Multiply those 
job numbers--13,000 for $1 billion--and you see the kind of job losses 
we have in the United States of America, especially in manufacturing, 
hitting those communities such as Lorain or Mansfield or Springfield or 
Dayton or Youngstown or Cleveland or cities in western New York, in 
Syracuse or Rochester or cities in North Carolina. You can see what it 
has done in small towns and urban areas alike to our job growth.
  In April 2011, our total trade deficit in that month alone was $54 
billion. Our trade deficit with China in that month alone was $21 
billion.
  Paul Krugman, a columnist with the New York Times, said:

       If you want a trade policy that helps employment, it has to 
     be a policy that induces other countries to run bigger 
     deficits or smaller surpluses. A countervailing duty on 
     Chinese exports would be job creating; a deal with South 
     Korea, not.

  I am not here today to argue or debate or even be critical of the 
free-trade agreement with South Korea. I think it is a bad idea. I hear 
the promises of administration after administration. This 
administration at least has not overpromised, as the Bush and Clinton 
administrations did, on the creation of jobs and trade, but we know 
that every time there is a trade agreement, the trade deficit goes up 
and job loss accelerates, especially in manufacturing.
  The point is that one major thing we can do about this is what the 
House of Representatives is trying to do; that is, pass the Currency 
Reform for Fair Trade Act. It will simply mean that China and the 
United States are on a more even, more level playing field, a more even 
relationship. It will save and help to increase manufacturing jobs. We 
know manufacturing jobs are a ticket to the middle class.
  In Germany, 20 percent of its workforce is in manufacturing. Only 10 
percent of our workforce is in manufacturing. Germany has higher 
unionization rates, higher wages, and a trade surplus.
  The United States has, as I pointed out, almost a $1 billion-a-day 
trade deficit with China--somewhat less than that; not much--and up to 
a $2 billion-a-day trade deficit with the world as a whole. Clearly our 
trade policy is not working. Currency reform is one major step in 
fixing that. It is something that I hope this Senate takes up sooner 
rather than later and that the House of Representatives does the same.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the question occurs on agreeing to 
amendment No. 499, offered by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Boozman
     Moran
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 47, the nays are 51. 
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made 
and laid upon the table.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 514

  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Toomey] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 514.

  Mr. TOOMEY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To strike the provision relating to the Governors and 
    alternate governors of the International Monetary Fund and the 
         International Bank for Reconstruction and Development)

       On page 63, strike lines 3 through 18.


[[Page 9856]]

  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Vitter as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. I rise to offer an amendment to retain the Senate 
confirmation process for two positions: the position of Governor and 
Alternate Governor of the IMF and the International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development.
  The Board of Governors at the IMF is the highest level of governance 
of the IMF. Currently, the Governor and the Alternative Governor are 
both subject to Senate confirmation. This bill would change that. This 
bill would remove them from the Senate confirmation process.
  I think I understand the rationale behind that thinking. It is 
probably because, by custom, the United States has appointed the 
Secretary of the Treasury as the Governor designate to the IMF and the 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve as the Alternate Governor. So since 
those folks have already been through a Senate confirmation process, no 
doubt the thought was that we did not need to have a separate one.
  Here is the reason for my amendment; that is, the decision to appoint 
these two individuals to these two posts has been by custom, and there 
is nothing in statute or otherwise that requires the President to 
appoint these two individuals. The President--any future President--
could choose to nominate anyone he or she may like. I think it is very 
important in that event the Senate would continue to have the oversight 
that comes with the advice and consent that my amendment would retain.
  The truth is, the United States is the largest lender to the IMF, and 
right now the IMF is in the process of using U.S. taxpayer dollars to 
bail out Greece and perhaps other countries. At a time when Greece and 
Europe are virtually drowning in debt, I do not think the Senate should 
be conceding its confirmation authority and potentially thereby 
reducing its oversight over the key IMF officials responsible for 
overseeing tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
  I think we all know, the United States does not even have its own 
fiscal house in order.
  Yet here we are giving over $100 billion to the IMF for them to, in 
turn, lend money to insolvent governments. That doesn't make sense to 
me. We are running a $1.5 trillion deficit, nearly 10 percent of our 
entire economy. Our debt is at 69 percent of our GDP and rising 
rapidly. It seems to me that American taxpayers should not be asked to 
bail out European governments that clearly haven't been able to get 
their act together. But recently, we actually expanded the liability 
U.S. taxpayers have to the IMF.
  Let me comment for a minute specifically on this idea of bailing out 
Greece because I think it is a very bad idea. Greek debt exceeds 150 
percent of their total economy now. The Brookings Institute estimates 
that bribery and corruption alone amount to 8 percent of GDP annually. 
The Greek workforce has a very low productivity rate. There is a very 
low percentage of their population engaged in the workforce. By any 
measure, this is an economy that is in a downward spiral.
  Despite that and despite a $160 billion bailout last May, in 2011, 
the Greek Government decided to increase its total expenditures. While 
running this staggering and unsustainable government, their 
government's decision was to increase spending. The fact is, 
unfortunately, no loan, no matter how large, no matter from where it 
comes, is going to solve Greece's problems. It is not that Greece has a 
problem with liquidity; their problem is solvency. Greece is insolvent. 
It cannot, and therefore will not, repay all its debt.
  The danger is going down this road and having the IMF and other 
multinationals lending money to Greece now, and we are effectively 
replacing the existing loans made by private banks--essentially 
European banks--with taxpayer dollars provided by these big 
institutions.
  Essentially, the Greek Government is going to default on the debt. 
The only question is, Upon whose debt? Will it be that of the private 
banks that lent them the money, as I believe it ought to be--those are 
the people who made the imprudent decision when they extended money to 
a fundamentally insolvent government--or will it be taxpayer-funded 
institutions because those institutions have taken out the debt of the 
private banks?
  I am afraid that is where we are heading, and that will include U.S. 
taxpayer dollars. I think it is a big mistake. It is also an unusual 
transaction for IMF, primarily for two reasons. It is unusual to lend 
money to developed economies. Usually, this kind of program goes to 
developing nations. But it is even more unusual in the magnitude, the 
sheer scale of this.
  In 2010, the IMF bailout of Greece was more than 3,000 percent of 
Greece's IMF quota. Typically, the size of loans such as this is no 
more than 200 to 600 percent of a nation's quota. This was 3,000 
percent.
  One of the biggest problems with going down this road of having 
multinational institutions bailing out insolvent countries is the moral 
hazard. There are a number of countries around Europe that are in 
substantial trouble, with varying degrees of fiscal problems, and some 
are teetering on the edge of insolvency. What is the message we are 
sending to those governments if multinationals come in and bail out 
Greece? The message is: Don't make the tough decisions now and impose 
the kinds of austerity you need because someday somebody will come 
along and bail you out of this problem. That is a very bad policy.
  Most of all, we ought not to be putting U.S. taxpayers in this 
position of taking on this liability, which I am afraid is not going to 
be repaid. The reality is, Congress has very limited oversight over 
IMF, by design--very limited authority. One of the few checks we do 
have is the ability to provide or to withhold our consent with respect 
to those who are nominated to that powerful governing board. I don't 
think, at a time when the IMF is going out putting tens of billions of 
U.S. taxpayer dollars at risk, bailing out irresponsible and insolvent 
foreign countries--at a time such as this, I don't think we should be 
doing anything to relinquish that authority we have, to diminish the 
opportunity we would have to provide that advice and consent.
  With that, I yield the floor and 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized for the purpose of speaking as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Libya and Afghanistan

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I speak today on a day that appears to be 
positioned between two very consequential decisions.
  Yesterday, the President announced his plan to draw down U.S. forces 
in Afghanistan, pledging to pull out 10,000 troops this year and the 
remaining 23,000 surge forces by September of 2012.
  Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will likely vote on a measure 
to limit the use of U.S. funding for U.S. military operations in Libya 
to only ``nonkinetic activities''--in other words, noncombat 
activities--meaning no limited strike missions to suppress air defenses 
or predator strikes against Qadhafi forces, which we are doing very 
little of already. The only military actions for which the Commander in 
Chief could commit our Armed Forces would be supporting missions from 
search and rescue to aerial refueling to intelligence.
  Those are the provisions in what is very likely to be voted on and 
passed by the House of Representatives tomorrow.

[[Page 9857]]

  Some may not see a connection between these decisions, but the 
connection is profound. We are having a profound debate in this country 
right now that I suspect will continue for some time. Critical 
questions are being asked and discussed: How should we in the United 
States define our national interests? What is the proper role for 
America in the world? How do we balance our commitments abroad and the 
global demands for U.S. leadership with an American public that is 
justifiably war weary after a decade of conflict and that is rightly 
concerned with our unsustainable levels of government spending and 
national debt?
  These are vital questions. They will determine the future of our 
Nation and, indeed, the future of the world. Reasonable Americans can 
disagree over what the right answers are. Although our disagreements 
may be heated and passionate, we should always remember that we are all 
Americans, that we are all patriotic, and that we all want to do what 
is best for the Nation we love.
  The discussions we are now having over Libya and Afghanistan go right 
to the heart of this broader debate, and this is where we see the real 
practical impact of the decisions all of us in public life must make 
and be accountable for. We are all trying to define America's interests 
and role in the world, to separate that which we can and must do from 
that which is beyond our capacity and our benefit to try to accomplish. 
We are all striving for a balanced approach to America's interests 
abroad, and it is for that reason I am very concerned about both the 
President's decision on Afghanistan and the House's pending vote on 
Libya.
  I agree with the President that, thanks especially to the sacrifice 
and courage of our fighting men and women, we are making amazing 
progress in Afghanistan. This progress is real and it is remarkable. 
But as our commanders on the ground all point out, it is also fragile 
and reversible. Our commanders also say what will be decisive is the 
fighting season next year--the warmer spring and summer months--when 
the insurgency historically picks up its operations after resting and 
regrouping a bit during the colder months. This will be our opportunity 
to consolidate our gains in southern Afghanistan and begin 
transitioning more and more of that fight to our Afghan friends, while 
increasing numbers of U.S. forces shift their main effort to eastern 
Afghanistan where the Haqqani network, al-Qaida, and other regional 
militant groups are still present and operating actively.
  The reason our commanders had to take this sequential approach is 
because they did not get all the forces they requested in 2009--40,000 
troops as opposed to the 33,000 the President gave them. What this 
means in practice is that our commanders in Afghanistan still need next 
year's fighting season to deal the same crushing blow to al-Qaida and 
the Taliban in the east as our forces have dealt them in the south. 
However, under the President's plan, which calls for having all of our 
surge units out of Afghanistan by September, those troops will begin 
flowing out of Afghanistan right at the time the Taliban, al-Qaida, and 
their allies begin stepping up their operations, especially in eastern 
Afghanistan.
  This is the irony of it all. The President's decision in December 
2009 had the effect of making this war longer and costlier by forcing 
our commanders to tackle our enemies in southern and eastern 
Afghanistan sequentially over 2 years rather than simultaneously in one 
decisive action over 1 year. Now, just at the moment when our troops 
could finish our main objective and begin ending our combat operations 
in a responsible way, just when they are 1 year away from turning over 
a battered and broken enemy in both southern and eastern Afghanistan to 
our Afghan partners, the President has now decided to deny them the 
forces our commanders believe they need to accomplish their objective.
  I hope I am wrong, I hope the President is right, that this decision 
will not endanger the hard-won gains our troops have made with the 
decisive progress they still need to make next year. I hope that proves 
correct. But I am very concerned the President's decision poses an 
unnecessary risk to the progress we have made thus far to our mission 
and to our men and women in uniform.
  Our troops are not exhausted. They are excited that after 10 years we 
finally have a winning strategy that is turning this war around. Anyone 
who says that our troops are exhausted should go out and talk to them. 
They want to stay at this until the job is done. We have sacrificed too 
much. America has a vital national interest in succeeding in 
Afghanistan. After all that we have given to this mission, the money we 
have committed to it, the decade we have devoted to it, and the 
precious lives we have lost throughout it, why would we do anything now 
that puts our mission at greater risk of failure?
  I would offer the same counsel to my Republican friends in the House 
with regard to our mission in Libya. I know my colleagues in Congress 
are angry with the administration and its Libya policy, and they have 
every right to be. From the disrespect and disregard the administration 
has shown Congress, to their bizarre assertion we are not really 
engaged in the hostilities in Libya, to the lack of resolve with which 
they have prosecuted this fight and made the public case for it, the 
administration has done an unfortunate amount to earn the ire of 
Congress. But we can't forget the main point: In the midst of the most 
ground-breaking geopolitical event in two decades, at least, as 
peaceful protests for democracy were sweeping the Middle East, with 
Qadhafi's forces to strike at the gates of Benghazi, and with Arabs and 
Muslims in Libya and across the region pleading for the U.S. military 
to stop the bloodshed, the United States and our allies took action and 
prevented the massacre that Qadhafi had promised to commit in a city of 
700,000 people.
  By doing so, they began creating conditions that are increasing the 
pressure on Qadhafi to give up power. Yes, the progress toward this 
goal has been slower than many had hoped, and the administration is 
doing less to achieve it than I and others would like. But here are the 
facts: We are succeeding in Libya. Qadhafi is going to fall. It is just 
a matter of time.
  So I would ask my colleagues: Is this the time for Congress to turn 
against this policy? Is this the time to ride to the rescue of an anti-
American tyrant, when the writing is on the wall that he is collapsing?
  Is this the time for Congress to declare to the world and to Qadhafi 
and his inner circle, to Qadhafi's opponents who are fighting for their 
freedom, and to our NATO allies who are carrying a far heavier burden 
in this conflict than we are, is this the time for America to tell all 
of these people that our heart is not in this and that we won't see 
this mission through; that we will abandon our best friends and allies 
on a whim?
  This all comes back to how we, as Americans, define our national 
interests and act on them. We can all agree that none of us are averse 
to doing what is necessary to defend America and our allies when we 
face a clear threat in the world.
  In that way, we are like any other nation in history. But what sets 
us apart from those other nations, what makes us exceptional, what 
makes us the United States of America is that we define our interests 
more broadly than that. Our interests also encompass the fact that we 
are the leader of the free world; that the circle of nations that want 
us to play that role is growing, not diminishing; and that this 
position of leadership also confers responsibilities that are greater 
than our own immediate and material self-interests. It is the 
responsibility we have to the universal ideals of freedom and justice 
and human rights, of which our Nation is both the greatest embodiment 
and the greatest champion in human history.
  That is not to say we can or should be involved everywhere. That is 
not to say we must act wherever and whenever our ideals are threatened. 
This is not to say military action is always the right answer, nor is 
this a recipe

[[Page 9858]]

for endless conflict and commitment. America is powerful, but we are 
not omnipotent. We must make hard choices about where to spend our 
blood and treasure.
  There will be more occasions than not when we will choose not to 
intervene, either because our interests do not warrant it or because we 
don't have the capacity to do so or because greater American 
involvement will not improve the situation. When we choose not to 
intervene forcefully in places where the cause of justice is calling 
out to us, be it Sudan or the Congo or Syria or countless other places 
where I and others have argued against intervention, we will be 
assailed as hypocritical and inconsistent. That is unfair, but it is 
nothing new for America.
  What we can never forget is that our Nation's interests are forever 
colored by our values. America has always believed that the success of 
freedom and democracy in other lands does not just make our world more 
just; it makes it a safer, more secure, and better place for Americans 
and our children.
  We can never afford to define our interests so narrowly that we would 
have sat back as an anti-American tyrant slaughtered his own people, 
thereby destroying one of the most historic attempts by millions of 
Arabs and Muslims to build better and more stable governments. That 
would have served neither our moral nor our strategic interests. 
Similarly, once we are engaged in a fight, as we are now in Libya and 
Afghanistan, and when we still have a clear path to succeed, as we do 
in both countries, it is in our moral and strategic interests to finish 
the job even if it is difficult and costly and unpopular. Failure is 
the only cost we truly cannot afford.
  America cannot make the world perfect, but we can make it better, 
freer, more just, more prosperous. That is what has always made us an 
exceptional nation. That is what has always been the greatest source of 
our national security. That is what has always made us America. And 
that is how we must remain.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following articles be 
printed in the Record: the Wall Street Journal article from this 
morning entitled ``Libya and Republicans,'' the Washington Post 
editorial from this morning entitled ``End of a Surge,'' and the Wall 
Street Journal article entitled ``Unplugging the Afghan Surge.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 23, 2011]

                             End of A Surge


     the mismatch between President Obama's strategy and his troop 
                          withdrawal timetable

       President Obama failed to offer a convincing military or 
     strategic rationale for the troop withdrawals from 
     Afghanistan that he announced Wednesday night. In several 
     ways, they are at odds with the strategy adopted by NATO, 
     which aims to turn over the war to the Afghan army by the end 
     of 2014. For that plan to succeed, military commanders 
     believe that U.S. and allied forces must hold the areas in 
     southern Afghanistan that have been cleared of the Taliban 
     through this summer's fighting season as well as that of 
     2012. They also must sweep eastern provinces that have not 
     yet been reached by the counterinsurgency campaign.
       By withdrawing 5,000 U.S. troops this summer and another 
     5,000 by the end of the year, Mr. Obama will make those tasks 
     harder. By setting September 2012 as a deadline for 
     withdrawing all of the 33,000 reinforcements he ordered in 
     late 2009, the President risks undermining not only the war 
     on the ground but also the effort to draw elements of the 
     Taliban into a political settlement; the militants may prefer 
     to wait out a retreating enemy. It also may be harder to gain 
     cooperation from Pakistan, whose willingness to break with 
     the Taliban is linked to its perception of U.S. determination 
     to remain engaged in the region. U.S. allies, which have 
     committed 40,000 troops to the 2014 plan, may revise their 
     own exit strategies.
       An accelerated withdrawal of American forces would make 
     more sense if Mr. Obama had decided to abandon the modified 
     counterinsurgency plan he adopted at the end of 2009, which 
     was later expanded and endorsed by NATO. Vice President 
     Biden, among others, has pressed for a more limited 
     counterterrorism strategy focused on combating al-Qaeda. But 
     Mr. Obama offered no indication in Wednesday's speech that he 
     has altered his objectives. Instead, he argued that the 
     reduction is possible because ``we are achieving our goals. . 
     . . We are starting this drawdown from a position of 
     strength.''
       Mr. Obama correctly pointed out that the killing of Osama 
     bin Laden and operations in Pakistan have weakened al-Qaeda 
     and limited its ability to attack the United States. But a 
     Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, which Mr. Obama's 
     withdrawals risk, would be deeply destabilizing for a region 
     that includes nuclear-armed Pakistan and India. If the Afghan 
     government or army crumbles, there would be a considerable 
     chance that the United States would lose the bases it now 
     uses for drone attacks against al-Qaeda.
       Perhaps the best justification for Mr. Obama's decision is 
     U.S. domestic opinion. As senior administration officials 
     have pointed out, Americans have grown weary of the war; 
     polls show that a majority support a rapid withdrawal of U.S. 
     forces, and that view is increasingly reflected in Congress 
     and even among Republican presidential candidates. Many in 
     Congress cite the cost of the war--though the few billion 
     dollars saved through a faster withdrawal will have little 
     impact on a deficit measured in trillions.
       By announcing these pullouts, Mr. Obama may ease some of 
     the political pressure while still allowing his commanders 
     enough forces to complete the 2014 transition plan. The 
     president's supporters point out that at the end of 2012, 
     there will still be twice as many U.S. troops in 
     Afghanistan--68,000--as when Mr. Obama took office. We hope 
     those prove sufficient. But Mr. Obama's withdrawal decision, 
     with no clear basis in strategy, increases the risk of 
     failure.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2011]

                         Libya and Republicans


        Cutting off funds is what Democrats do to GOP Presidents

       Back in the day--this would be March 7, 2011--Newt Gingrich 
     offered a compelling case for intervening militarily in 
     Libya:
       ``Exercise a no-fly zone this evening,'' he told Fox News 
     Channel. ``Communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi is 
     gone. . . . Provide help to the rebels to replace him. I 
     mean, the idea that we're confused about a man who has been 
     an anti-American dictator since 1969 just tells you how inept 
     this Administration is. . . . We don't need to have the 
     United Nations. All we have to say is that we think 
     slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable.''
       Mr. Gingrich has since, er, clarified his position, so that 
     today the former Speaker is one of several prominent 
     Republicans, along with fellow Presidential candidates 
     Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman, opposing President Obama 
     for doing most of what he advised a few months ago. Add the 
     House vote expected Friday seeking to limit funding for the 
     Libya effort, and we are witnessing at the very least some 
     unsightly political opportunism, if not yet the rebirth of 
     pre-Eisenhower GOP isolationism.
       We understand the argument--we've made it often ourselves--
     that Mr. Obama has prosecuted the Libya campaign half-
     heartedly. The major part of the U.S. combat mission lasted 
     days and has been over for months. The U.S. is supplying 
     logistical help to NATO, but the alliance hasn't been able to 
     dislodge Moammar Gadhafi. U.S. aid to the Libyan rebels has 
     been of the ``non-lethal'' variant--mainly MRE rations--when 
     what they most need are guns and munitions.
       About a dozen countries, most recently Germany, have 
     formally recognized the Benghazi-based Transitional National 
     Council as Libya's legitimate government. But the U.S. hasn't 
     done so, and only now is Congress advancing the legislation 
     that would allow Gadhafi's frozen assets to be sent to 
     Libya's people in the form of humanitarian aid. The evidence 
     we've seen does not suggest, beyond isolated examples, that 
     the rebels are linked to al Qaeda, while Gadhafi's record in 
     promoting terrorism is clear.
       But all of this is an argument for prodding Mr. Obama to 
     win the wars he starts, not to cut off funding and guarantee 
     defeat. It is also an opportunity for Republicans to point 
     out that Gadhafi has the blood of hundreds of Americans on 
     his hands, and that to allow him to remain in power would 
     give the vindictive tyrant a chance to strike back. It would 
     also likely mean the collapse of NATO as a credible military 
     alliance. These are the kind of U.S. security interests that 
     Republicans have defended as a core party principle for 
     decades.
       Instead on Libya, Republicans are wrapping themselves in 
     the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a Watergate-era law the 
     constitutionality of which no President has recognized, and 
     which Mr. Gingrich rightly attempted to have repealed in the 
     1990s, saying at the time that ``I want to strengthen the 
     current Democratic President because he is the President of 
     the United States.''
       Trying to defund U.S. military operations has been the 
     habit of Democrats in Congress going back to the Vietnam era, 
     to no good end. In 1975, they slashed support for our allies 
     in South Vietnam, signaling to the North that it was open 
     season to invade. Saigon fell, and a generation of detention 
     and murder descended on Southeast Asia.
       In the 1980s, Democrats cut off funds for the contra rebels 
     in Nicaragua, delaying their liberation from Communist 
     Sandinista rule. And most recently, they tried to shut down 
     the war in Iraq, emboldening the terrorist insurgents until 
     the GOP-backed surge defeated them. Is this the kind of 
     example that Republicans want to follow?

[[Page 9859]]

       It's true that the Senate probably won't join any fund cut-
     off, and Mr. Obama can veto the bill. In that sense the House 
     vote is purely symbolic--and even more politically cynical. 
     But such nuances will be missed in Tripoli, where the Gadhafi 
     family will take it as a sign to hold out longer. There's a 
     reason the dictator sent a thank-you missive to Speaker John 
     Boehner after the House Libya vote three weeks ago.
       For half a century, and especially since Vietnam, the 
     Republican Party has stood for a strong national defense and 
     the projection of military power to defend U.S. interests and 
     to spread freedom around the world. Running to the left of 
     Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry is not the way to win elections, 
     much less to enhance America's security.
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2011]

                      Unplugging the Afghan Surge


       President Obama declares victory before it's been achieved

       President Obama delivered a remarkable speech last night, 
     essentially unplugging the Afghanistan troop surge he 
     proposed only 18 months ago and doing so before its goals 
     have been achieved. We half expected to see a ``mission 
     accomplished'' banner somewhere in the background.
       Not long ago, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke about 
     only a token drawdown this year, but he's now on his way out 
     of the Pentagon. This time Mr. Obama overruled his military 
     advisers and sided instead with Vice President Joe Biden and 
     his political generals who have their eye on the mission of 
     re-election. His real generals, the ones in the field, will 
     now have to scramble to fulfill their counterinsurgency 
     mission, if that is still possible.
       Mr. Obama said the U.S. will start to remove troops next 
     month, returning 10,000, or three or four brigades, by the 
     end of the year. The entire 33,000-soldier Obama surge will 
     be gone by next summer, and withdrawals will continue ``at a 
     steady pace'' after that. So the full surge force will have 
     been in Afghanistan for only a single fighting season, and 
     even the remaining 68,000 troops are heading out. Mr. Obama 
     reiterated NATO's previously agreed on date of 2014 for the 
     full transfer of combat operations to Afghan forces, but that 
     date now seems notional.
       The President rightly pointed to the coalition progress 
     against the Taliban in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in the 
     south, in building up an Afghan army and eliminating 
     terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan. But the military knows 
     these gains are tentative, and it pressed the White House to 
     keep all the fighting brigades in Afghanistan to press the 
     advantage. We don't envy the task of Lt. General John Allen, 
     who is taking over the Afghan command this summer from 
     General David Petraeus. He'll now have to take the battle to 
     the remaining Taliban strongholds in the east, while 
     protecting the gains made in the south and elsewhere, even as 
     he also manages the withdrawals. The expanding Afghan forces 
     will be able to fill in only some of the gaps, and the U.S. 
     troops who remain will be exposed to greater risks. The 
     burden of long deployments is hard on the troops, but those 
     we talk to would rather finish the job than leave too soon 
     and risk having their sacrifice washed away in a Taliban 
     resurgence.
       In justifying the withdrawal, Mr. Obama repeatedly stressed 
     the damage we've done to al Qaeda. Yet most of those 
     successes have been mounted from Afghanistan, including the 
     killing of Osama bin Laden. Mr. Obama stressed that he'll 
     continue to press Pakistan to cooperate in attacking 
     terrorist havens, but his accelerated withdrawal schedule 
     will make that persuasion harder. The Pakistan military will 
     now almost surely not act against the Afghan Taliban. The 
     Pakistanis will press instead for a ``reconciliation'' 
     between the Afghan government and Taliban leaders, who will 
     be the most relieved by last night's speech.
       The President wanted to accentuate the progress of the 
     surge last night to explain his decision to short-circuit it. 
     But the real message was political and could not have been 
     clearer: ``America,'' he said, ``it is time to focus on 
     nation building here at home.'' And ``the tide of war is 
     receding.''
       Mr. Obama was laying out his re-election theme as a 
     Commander in Chief who ended George W. Bush's wars and 
     brought the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. He could 
     bring the troops home from Iraq because Mr. Bush had already 
     won the surge before Mr. Obama took office. Let's hope 
     America's generals can still conjure a similar success from 
     Afghanistan, despite a pre-empted surge and a Presidential 
     march to the exits.

  Mr. McCAIN. I note my friend from South Carolina here today. The 
Senator from South Carolina, as many of us know, is a reserve colonel--
a terrible mistake by the promotion boards--in the U.S. Air Force JAG 
Corps. He has spent more time in Afghanistan than any Member of 
Congress, including more than most Members of Congress combined. He has 
observed closely in Afghanistan the surge, its success, its 
impediments. I ask unanimous consent to engage in colloquy with the 
Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I wonder if my friend saw General Keene, the architect of 
the surge in Iraq, on one of the networks this morning describing his 
views on the President's decision concerning drawing down our troops 
from Afghanistan.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I did. And if I could respond to my colleague about his 
statement on the floor, I would like to associate myself with it. I 
thought it was a very well articulated statement about the times in 
which we live.
  For about 18 months, we have had additional military capacity that 
was never known to Afghanistan, all because of President Obama's 
decision to send 33,000 troops at General Petraeus' request. Now, the 
request was for 40,000, but at the time, I said: I do appreciate 
President Obama giving the commander the resources that could do the 
job, but you have to do it differently.
  General Keene is the architect of counterinsurgency. He is a mentor 
of General Petraeus. He and General Petraeus and others came up with 
the strategy that succeeded in Iraq. Here is what has happened, from my 
point of view.
  I go about every 3 months. About 2 years ago, I was very afraid we 
were going to lose.
  How could the Taliban come back with about 100,000 NATO forces in 
Afghanistan? The truth was that the rules of engagement for NATO really 
were law enforcement rules. The NATO forces could not engage the enemy 
in an effective way.
  We were looking at this from the eyes of a law enforcement activity, 
and the number of American forces was about 30,000. That wasn't enough 
to help build the Afghan Army, train and equip the Afghan Army, control 
the population, provide safety, and give governance a chance to 
flourish through better security. That is why we needed more troops.
  To all the commanders before General Petraeus, you were holding 
Afghanistan together, in many ways with duct tape.
  I believe Iraq is a pivotal moment in the war on terror, but it is a 
fair observation to make that because of the war in Iraq, resources 
were taken away from Afghanistan. The truth is that even though we have 
been there almost 10 years, we really have only been there with the 
capacity to bring about change for the last 18 months.
  So what has happened in the last 18 months? The 30,000 surge forces 
were sent to the southern part of Afghanistan. This really is a Pashtun 
civil war. It is a fight between the Taliban, a radical element of the 
Pashtun community, and a majority of Pashtuns and other Afghans who 
want a different way.
  Kandahar is in the south. It is the spiritual home of Mullah Omar. 
That is the place he lived, and there is an American operating base 
within a mile of his compound. You can get up on the roof of a prison 
there, and you can see Mullah Omar's compound. So the argument is, if 
we can win in the south, we can win anywhere. So we took 30,000 troops 
into the southern part of Afghanistan, and we broke the enemy's back. 
We have allowed the Afghan Army and security forces to develop.
  In September 2009, there were 800 people a month joining the Afghan 
Army and 2,000 a month leaving. I am not very good at math, but that is 
not a way to build an army. From December 2009 to the present, we have 
been recruiting 6,000 a month in the army, 3,000 in the police. What 
happened? Better pay and a sense that we were going to win. So in 17 
months, we have built up the Afghan security forces by 90,000. We will 
have 305,000 by the end of this year.
  What is the problem with the President's drawdown of forces? Why 
can't you do it with the numbers we have? Counterinsurgency is a very 
labor-intensive operation. Its goal is to provide population security 
and focus on training by fighting with a unit. Instead of training them 
during the day and hoping they do well at night, you literally go out 
and live with the police and the

[[Page 9860]]

army. It is a very labor-intensive activity, but it is the best way to 
provide training and build capacity.
  Here is the problem. The surge forces under President Obama's 
withdrawal plan are now going to compromise next summer. Drawing 10,000 
down this year is going to make it hard to finish out the fighting 
season we are engaged in now.
  But here is General Allen's dilemma. Because we had 30, not 40, we 
couldn't go to RC-East, where the Haqqani Network exists, and fight the 
Taliban in the south at the same time. So we took our full force of the 
surge and put it against the Taliban in the south. We broke their back. 
We have been holding RC-East, and the game plan was to take those surge 
forces out of the south and go to RC-East next summer and deliver a 
decisive blow to the Haqqani Network. That way, the two forces 
undermining Afghanistan would be put at bay.
  Because of the President's decision and the rejection of General 
Petraeus' advice, come next summer the surge forces will be all gone by 
September, and General Allen is in a box. How does he hang on to the 
security gains in RC-South? Because the enemy's will has been broken, 
they have been put on their knees, but they are not yet defeated 
because they can go across the border to Pakistan. So next summer, the 
surge forces we were going to have available for General Allen are 
going to be gone, and RC-East cannot be engaged in the same fashion as 
RC-South.
  What does that all matter? That means one of the enemies of the 
Afghan people is getting a reprieve and the ability to develop security 
forces all over the country so that when we leave, they can fight and 
win has been compromised. Counterinsurgency requires math. You need a 
certain amount of soldiers against the enemy.
  I was asked last night: There are only 50 al-Qaida. Why do you need 
so many troops? One Navy SEAL could defeat 50 al-Qaida.
  Those who suggest that simplistic formula don't understand what we 
are trying to do. We are trying to take a country that has been beaten 
down and involved in civil war for 30 years and provide better 
governance through better security.
  The way you beat the Taliban is you go and take them on with an 
overwhelming show of force. You inspire the local population to come 
your way and get off the sidelines because they don't want the Taliban 
to win, but they are afraid that at the end of the day we are going to 
leave and the Taliban will take over. Because of this surge, the people 
in the south jumped our way. And this is what is so heartbreaking. We 
are on the verge of being able in two summers to deliver decisive blows 
to two enemies of ours and the Afghan people--the radical element of 
the Taliban and the Haqqani Network in the east. But because of this 
adjustment in strategy, I think we now have lost capability, and 
General Allen is going to have a much more difficult job.
  Things to watch.
  Mr. McCAIN. According to the Washington Post this morning, the 
editorial ``End Of A Surge. The mismatch between President Obama's 
strategy and his troop withdrawal timetable'':

       Mr. Obama's withdrawal decision, with no clear basis in 
     strategy, increases the risk of failure.

  The only other issue--and I think the Senator from South Carolina is 
very well qualified to describe it--I hear over and over, especially 
from those who are opposed to our involvement in this conflict, the 
troops are exhausted, the troops are exhausted. Yet General Keene, this 
morning on one of the news channels, said: They are not exhausted. They 
are exhilarated because they are winning. They know they have 
sacrificed so many of their comrades, killed and wounded. They are not 
exhausted. But they certainly, certainly don't want to come home in 
defeat, something that I saw a long time ago.
  Mr. GRAHAM. That is a very good question. Who are these people and 
what makes them tick? Why would people who could leave by just not 
reenlisting keep going back to Iraq and Afghanistan? My view of our 
forces is that they see the face of the enemy, they believe they have a 
strategy that is working, and they don't want their kids to go back. So 
when you use the troops as a reason to shortcut this war, I don't think 
you are really listening to what they say and what they do. If they 
were exhausted and hopeless, they would change careers.
  I have never seen Afghanistan change as much as I have in the last 
year, and my fear is that the successes we have achieved are going to 
be compromised for no good reason. Both of us believe that you could, 
at the end of 2012, if you do this right, remove all of the surge 
forces. But what we have been trying to argue to the President and 
anyone else who will listen is that this fighting season and the next 
fighting season are the best chance we will have in our lifetime to 
bring about permanent, sustainable change. And I think General Petraeus 
has been trying to tell the country and the President: Give General 
Allen the ability to take the fight to the east like we did to the 
south.
  From the troops' point of view, the reason they go to Afghanistan and 
Iraq over and over is they understand this enemy better than you and I. 
They see what the enemy is capable of doing. They saw it in Anbar, 
where children were killed in front of their parents by al-Qaida. They 
see what happens when the Taliban hangs a 9-year-old boy because they 
believe he is providing information to the coalition forces.
  I think our troops understand the danger America faces, to the point 
that they are willing to leave their families time and time again to 
protect all of us back here at home.
  If you do not believe Afghanistan matters, then I think you are going 
to be in for a rude awakening. If it goes bad in Afghanistan, if the 
Taliban can survive and wait us out and they begin to reemerge, a lot 
of people who helped us, I say to Senator McCain, are going to get 
killed. And when America goes off to some future conflict to help the 
oppressed, we are going to be seen as an unreliable ally and our 
enemies are going to be stronger.
  One final thought. This is a consequential week. The negotiations 
dealing with our national debt have broken down. My colleagues in the 
House, whom I respect, are about to vote to cut off funding, which will 
send a signal to Muammar Qadafi that I think is unhealthy. At the end 
of the day, the decisions we make here in Congress are going to affect 
our Nation long after you and I leave this body. Qadafi is on the 
ropes. NATO has limited capacity, but if the American Congress tells 
Qadafi we are out of the fight, I am afraid that is going to give him a 
sense of hope he does not have today.
  What does it matter if he stays? I think logically you can expect, if 
he outlasts NATO, the Arab spring is over. We can't go into Syria, but 
he will take it out on his people. I think it will affect the price of 
oil. That will be the end of NATO, because with NATO taking on Qadafi 
and losing, it is going to be very hard for that organization to go off 
to another war and be taken seriously.
  I hope we can survive this week, that cooler heads will prevail. I am 
going to tell Mike Mullen, when you come to get confirmed for this job, 
please let us know if you are having to make hard decisions because of 
a lack of resources. Give the President that information and let 
Congress know so we can adjust the strategy. I hope the President is 
right and that we are both wrong. But General Keene and General 
Petreaus have come up with a strategy that I think, given time and 
patience, will work. This new strategy is something that is untested, 
that is unnecessarily risky.
  The way to keep America safe, Ronald Reagan said, the way to prevent 
a war--he said: When people who love freedom are strong, not weak, that 
is the best way to prevent war.
  Mr. McCAIN. Can I say in summary--and I thank the Senator from 
Connecticut for his forbearance--I agree with the Senator from South 
Carolina, obviously. I say to my friends on the other side of the 
Capitol, although it may fall on deaf ears at this moment, I hope they 
know that we understand their frustration about the President's

[[Page 9861]]

failure to recognize the War Powers Act exists, and the failure of the 
administration to consult and brief Members of Congress on the 
situation in Libya, about many aspects of the way this conflict has 
been conducted where America is ``leading from behind.''
  But I want to repeat what the Senator from South Carolina said: This 
could mean the end of NATO. If NATO cannot defeat a third-rate military 
power, then NATO is probably going to go out of business. If we do not 
succeed in Libya and oust Qadafi, as is the President's policy, you 
will see a center for terrorist activities, you will see a return of 
al-Qaida to Libya--certainly a dramatically increased influence. And, 
frankly, it will send a message to the world that even though we say 
about a dictator and a brutal killer and murderer such as Qadafi that 
it is our policy that he be removed from power, we are either unwilling 
or unable to do so.
  I again caution my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I hope 
they would not do anything that would enhance the ability of this 
brutal dictator to remain in power and continue to perpetrate the 
murders and crimes for which he is so well known.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                            Gasoline Prices

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow that very 
articulate colloquy between my colleagues from Arizona and South 
Carolina and certainly draw inspiration from what they have outlined in 
that colloquy, the consequences internationally and at home in this 
very important week. I rise to call attention to developments in an 
area that is among those consequences--the price of gasoline, the 
supply of fuel internationally and at home.
  I rise to commend the President of the United States for releasing 
today some 30 million barrels of oil over the next 30 days, which 
already has brought down the price of oil by about $5 per barrel on the 
New York Mercantile Exchange. This consequence certainly cannot be the 
end of the campaign that we must continue to wage. I commend the 
President for heeding the calls from myself and my colleagues to 
address the pain felt across Connecticut and the country as prices 
remain too high, at close to $4 a gallon. The drop we have seen today 
should be followed by additional reductions. That can happen only if 
the administration and this body continue to campaign to achieve those 
lower prices.
  This development follows the decision by the Federal Trade Commission 
to conduct an investigation, again heeding calls from me and my 
colleagues, that a searching, penetrating, comprehensive investigation 
is necessary to forestall and prevent manipulation and speculation on 
the markets. We have seen over these months that supply and demand is 
not the cause of increases in the price of oil internationally or here 
at home. It is directly and substantially a consequence of speculation 
by traders and the hedge funds, as well as potentially illegal 
manipulation.
  The FTC investigation is in response to those calls we have made, 
based on what we have seen in those markets. Clearly the FTC is 
reacting, for example, to the fact that U.S. refiners' margins have 
increased more than 90 percent since the beginning of 2011. Over that 
same period of time the amount of capacity has been reduced by 7 
percent. It is 81.7 percent over this same period of time, a 7-percent 
reduction from the same period in 2010. Those indicia of potential 
forces in the market that have nothing to do with supply and demand are 
certainly more than sufficient basis for the FTC investigation. 
Combined with the release of product from the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, they have helped to bring down prices.
  But the campaign must continue. We must deter speculation and illegal 
manipulation. We must send a message to those speculators and 
manipulators who are on the wrong side of these markets, who are on the 
wrong side of history: You will lose and you will lose big time This 
kind of message is what is necessary to protect Connecticut and 
national consumers. We have seen in Connecticut that the price is still 
above $4 on average in many places.
  This issue is not just one that affects consumers, it is an economic 
issue with broad and far-reaching ramifications. It affects small 
business people who have to drive their cars to get to work, to deliver 
product, to arrive at places where they are working and spending time. 
It has ripple effects throughout our economy. It is crushing to 
families and small businesses.
  The rise in prices in this country for fuel and gasoline has been 
crushing families and small businesses. It had ramifications throughout 
the economy that these two steps, release of product through the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the FTC investigation, will help to 
counter.
  More is necessary--stronger enforcement and regulatory steps to stop 
and prevent abusive speculation and manipulation. I will be announcing 
a number of proposals for my part that I hope will be followed in the 
next days and weeks.
  These two steps are important, but they must be followed by others, 
they must be the beginning, not the end, of a comprehensive strategy to 
bring down the price of fuel--not just gasoline but soon heating oil--
for Connecticut families as well as consumers across the country. This 
pattern must continue.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 510

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 510.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]

                               YEAS -- 41

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                               NAYS -- 57

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                            NOT VOTING -- 2

     Boozman
     Moran
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 41, the nays are 
57. The amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 517

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes, if I 
could, just to speak on----
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator from Delaware yield?
  Mr. CARPER. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are trying to arrive at an end to this 
legislation. We are not there yet. We hope

[[Page 9862]]

there will be no more votes today. We feel positive there will not be, 
but we are not ready to make that decision right now. We should within 
the next hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to begin my remarks this 
afternoon by congratulating several of our colleagues who have worked 
long and hard on this legislation, and their staffs who have worked 
equally long and hard: Senator Schumer and Senator Alexander; I see 
Senator Collins is on the floor; Senator Lieberman; our leaders, 
Democrat and Republican leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell.
  Anyone watching this debate from across America on C-SPAN might be 
wondering why is this important? Why are they doing this? Why are we 
spending several days, literally, in session in the Senate to focus on 
a nominations bill? Why? For those folks who might be wondering why, 
let me just offer these thoughts.
  This administration has been in office for roughly 2\1/2\ years now. 
If we look throughout the Federal Government, the executive branch of 
the government, most of the positions that require Presidential 
nominations and Senate confirmation have now been filled. But a number, 
including a number that are in highly important, highly critical 
positions, have not been. Until fairly recently this administration 
looked like what I describe as ``executive branch Swiss cheese.''
  People sometimes wonder why the Federal Government in Washington does 
not work better and maybe why does it not work as well as our States. I 
want to take a moment, if I can, to compare the approach we used in 
Delaware. I know Senator Alexander is a former Governor. It is probably 
the approach they use in Tennessee, to fill key leadership positions in 
the executive branch of those State governments.
  In my State, for example, the Governor nominates people to serve as 
cabinet secretaries in a dozen or so different departments. Those 
nominations have to be confirmed before the senate. They hold hearings 
and generally report those nominations favorably. In fact, in my 8 
years as Governor, we never had the senate fail to report and to vote 
for one of our nominees for an executive branch department--for 
example, secretary of transportation, secretary of education, those 
kinds of appointments. Within those various departments of State 
government, the division directors are appointed by the Governor 
without confirmation by the senate. The rest of our line departments 
within State government in Delaware are not appointed by the Governor; 
they are literally chosen through the merit system and report up the 
chain of command through the director of the division to the secretary 
of the department. That is the way it works.
  I remember when I was about to be sworn in as Governor. I met with 
the senate--it was a Democrat majority at the time--and they were 
interested in knowing who I was going to nominate to different 
positions. I explained who we had in mind. They said: We do not know 
some of those people. Some of them are from other States. We are not 
sure that we ought to be confirming them.
  I asked them: Look, why don't we make a deal. Give me the team I feel 
that as Governor I am entitled to have, make sure they are honorable 
people, smart people, that sort of thing. But at the end of the day, 
let me have my team and go forward and try to govern in partnership 
with the legislative branch, and judge us in the end on how we perform.
  To their credit, that is what the State senate decided to do. That is 
the way we operated for 8 years. They were 9 very good years. I was 
fortunate to be Governor at the same time that Bill Clinton was 
President, and we managed to balance our budget for 8 years in a row. 
We actually cut taxes 7 years in a row. We got ourselves a AAA credit 
rating for the first time in State history and still have it. That is 
the way we operated.
  It does not look that way or operate that way here, and there are a 
number of reasons this administration, the last administration, and I 
suspect the one before that, a year or 2 years even into those 
administrations, the executive branch--if we look through the senior 
ranks of the leadership of the various departments--looked too much 
like executive branch Swiss cheese.
  Senator Alexander and Senator Schumer, to their credit, are trying to 
change that. I commend them for their efforts. I think it is enormously 
important.
  If you are trying to be the President and lead this country, you need 
your team. It is important that they be capable people, honorable 
people. But at the end of the day, a President of either party needs a 
good team, a strong team, filled sooner rather than later.
  There are a number of reasons it is so difficult to get many of these 
vacancies filled. One of them is a reluctance on the part of some 
people to go through the process, the confirmation process. It takes 
forever in some cases. These nominees are asked to bare, not their 
souls but largely bare their lives to go through a process where they 
can be maybe not crucified but certainly exposed to anything they have 
ever done wrong in their lives. None of us is perfect.
  I think that in itself deters people from wanting to go through this 
process. I was once nominated when I was Governor to serve on the 
Amtrak board by President Clinton. I remember how long it took just to 
fill out the paperwork--one set of paperwork for the executive branch, 
a totally different set of paperwork for the legislative branch.
  I remember saying to my wife, after spending a weekend just to fill 
out the paperwork: I am not sure it is really worth doing all of this. 
I am really not sure it is worth it. I am sure for other folks who go 
through this process they probably reach the same conclusion at least 
once during the time they go through the paperwork.
  We need to have not separate questionnaires, we need to synchronize, 
homogenize at least the paperwork, and hopefully put it in an 
electronic form so we can do it electronically--those nominees can do 
it electronically one time and be done with it and send it off to the 
right folks to look at.
  One of the reasons we go slowly is--I will share with you--I was 
riding in Afghanistan or Pakistan, one of those countries a couple of 
months ago, riding around with a codel on a bus going from place to 
place. One of the folks on the bus said they were looking for somebody 
to put a hold on a nomination in order to get some leverage on 
something that Senator was trying to get from the administration--that 
is with a Democratic President and a Republican Senator. But I want to 
tell you, that conversation could have happened 4 years ago with a 
Democratic Senator and a Republican President. A lot of folks have used 
for years the ability to put a hold, to stop a nomination from moving 
forward, in order to gain some kind of political advantage, which has 
nothing to do maybe with the nominee or the nominee's ability to serve.
  The other point I want to make--I shared this with some of our 
colleagues in our caucus, the Senate Democratic caucus, the other day. 
I talked to my colleagues about the work of the Government 
Accountability Office, GAO. Every year they publish, as most of us 
know, something called a High Risk List. And a high risk is just a 
whole lot of initiatives or problems that exist throughout the Federal 
Government that either are costing us a lot of money or are going to 
cost us a lot of money unless we do something different.
  One of the top items on the GAO's High Risk List for years now has 
been major weapons systems cost overruns. In 2000, GAO determined that 
major weapons systems cost overruns--Department of Defense--was $42 
billion. That is a lot of money.
  They update that list every year. They updated it for 2010 not long 
ago, and they concluded that major weapons systems cost overruns in 
2010 had gone from $42 billion--10 years ago--to $402 billion in 2010.
  I chair a subcommittee called Federal Financial Management, part of

[[Page 9863]]

Homeland Security Government Affairs. We have held a number of hearings 
in recent years to try to figure out how we can get better results for 
less money--how we get better results for taxpayers for less money or 
better results for maybe not much more money.
  As we drilled down on major weapons systems cost overruns, here is 
one of the things we found out. Through testimony offered by a fellow 
from--one of the top three people in acquisition in the Department of 
Defense, a fellow named Jim Finley, who reported to John Young, the top 
acquisition guy in the last administration, who reported to Bob Gates, 
the Secretary.
  We brought in Jim Finley for testimony on major weapons systems cost 
overruns. Again, this is Secretary Gates, John Young, top acquisition 
guy at the Pentagon, and then Jim Finley. We asked Mr. Finley--I asked 
him a question: How long have you been in your job?
  He told me how many months he had served in his job.
  I asked him what kind of turnover he got from his predecessor.
  He said: My predecessor left 18 months before I was confirmed for 
this position.
  So I said: You mean, for like 18 months, there was no confirmed 
person in your position for acquisition to oversee the major weapons 
systems?
  I said: How many direct reports did you have once you got into your 
job--how many folks were directly reporting to you?
  He said: There are six direct reports to me in that job but only two 
of them were filled.
  Just think about that. Here we are, the Department of Defense, 
hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons systems to oversee in 
acquisitions, and arguably the No. 2 person in acquisitions in the 
Department of Defense, that position was vacant for 18 months--18 
months.
  When he finally got confirmed, of the six direct reports, only two 
were filled. No wonder we have these huge weapons systems cost 
overruns--and it is not just an isolated incident. We brought in Jim 
Finley's counterpart today in this administration, a fellow named Frank 
Kendall. Good man. He testified earlier this year. Again, it is Bob 
Gates, the Secretary. Now it is Ashton Carter who is the top 
acquisition person in DOD. Then we have Frank Kendall.
  I said to Mr. Kendall: How long have you been in the job?
  He told me how many months.
  I said: What kind of turnover did you get from your predecessor?
  He said: My predecessor left 15 months before I got here.
  My friends, I do not know how good we all are at connecting the dots, 
but when we have one of the top two people at the Department of Defense 
responsible for riding herd on the defense industry, all our 
contractors, and these contracts are for very expensive weapons 
systems--when we have a vacancy for 18 months in one administration, 
the next administration, pretty much like a vacancy for 15 months--that 
is no good. That is an invitation for disaster.
  When we see the major weapons systems cost overruns go from $42 
billion in 2000 to $400 billion 10 years later, I would suggest one of 
the reasons is because of this confirmation process, the vetting 
process. Really, the biggest problem of all is the administration. The 
administration takes forever to identify people to go in these 
positions, to vet these positions and actually give us a name.
  There are no silver bullets in terms of solving this problem. We need 
a lot of silver BBs. One of the good things about the legislation 
before us is it provides a number of very helpful tools to expedite the 
consideration of nominees, to better ensure that the next 
administration, or even this administration a year or two from now if 
the President is reelected, that we do not end up with more and more 
executive branch Swiss cheese, which really translates to the taxpayers 
an enormous cost, costs we cannot afford with the budget deficit of 
over $1 trillion.
  The last thing I want to say, if I may, I know people are offering 
amendments. I am going to call up an amendment to this bill in just a 
moment. It is an amendment that involves again our friends at GAO, the 
Government Accountability Office. Our amendment is pretty 
straightforward. It would require GAO to investigate and conduct a 
survey on the number of Presidentially appointed positions that are not 
Senate confirmed in each agency, a category of jobs that also routinely 
go unfilled for extended periods of time.
  The study would provide recommendations as to whether eliminating or 
converting certain appointees to career positions would be more 
efficient. In addition, the survey should evaluate whether it is 
beneficial to reduce and convert specialized categories of appointees, 
such as inspector generals, chief financial officers, or acquisition 
officers to career status, not as politically appointed.
  The purpose of the amendment is that the proposal, we believe, would 
provide an analysis of what is an efficient amount of Presidentially 
appointed positions governmentwide. It also would provide 
recommendations on how to further reduce or convert these positions.
  As far as I can tell, it is not a controversial proposal. GAO does a 
lot of good work for us to help figure out how to operate more 
efficiently, also to use some common sense. My hope is that my 
colleagues will see fit to support it.
  That having been said, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 
No. 517, which I filed earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 517.

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that the Government Accountability Office shall 
    conduct a study and submit a report on presidentially appointed 
                positions to Congress and the President)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. REPORT ON PRESIDENTIALLY APPOINTED POSITIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``agency'' means an Executive agency defined 
     under section 105 of title 5, United States Code; and
       (2) the term ``covered position'' means a position in an 
     agency that requires appointment by the President without the 
     advice and consent of the Senate.
       (b) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Government Accountability Office 
     shall conduct a study and submit a report on covered 
     positions to Congress and the President.
       (c) Contents.--The report submitted under this section 
     shall include--
       (1) a determination of the number of covered positions in 
     each agency;
       (2) an evaluation of whether maintaining the total number 
     of covered positions is necessary;
       (3) an evaluation of the benefits and disadvantages of--
       (A) eliminating certain covered positions;
       (B) converting certain covered positions to career 
     positions or positions in the Senior Executive Service that 
     are not career reserved positions; and
       (C) converting any categories of covered positions to 
     career positions;
       (4) the identification of--
       (A) covered positions described under paragraph (3)(A) and 
     (B); and
       (B) categories of covered positions described under 
     paragraph (3)(C); and
       (5) any other recommendations relating to covered 
     positions.

  Mr. CARPER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                           U.S. Credit Score

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, most Americans have a credit score. We 
don't know much about it until we start to borrow money. Then you find 
out what your score is, and that will determine whether you are going 
to get a loan and, if you get one, how much interest you will pay for 
it.
  Several years ago, I got a phone call from a bill collection agency 
to my home in Springfield, saying: Durbin, we finally caught up with 
you; I don't know how you thought you could get

[[Page 9864]]

away from us, but the charges that you have run up here at Home Depot 
in Denver, CO, haven't been paid for months. I said I had never been to 
the Home Depot in Denver, CO.
  Well, I was a victim of identity theft. Somebody got enough 
information about me to apply for an account there and run up some 
charges. They said: Prove it. So I sent them some information and they 
came back and said: We are satisfied you weren't the person who ran up 
the charges, and you better check with your credit agencies to see what 
your credit score is now because everybody has been reporting this 
default on payment on the Home Depot in Denver, CO. I checked and, sure 
enough, my credit scores, which I never pay any attention to because I 
don't borrow a lot of money, were terrible. I went through about 3 
months of reconstructing what happened and clearing my record, and at 
the end they said everything is fine. It can be done.
  Why do I bring up this example? The credit score of the United States 
is now in question. On August 2, the Secretary of the Treasury tells us 
that if we don't extend the debt ceiling of the United States, we are 
going to be in a terrible financial situation.
  What is the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling is America's mortgage--the 
amount of money we borrow as a government, as a nation, to sustain 
ourselves. We borrow a lot of money--40 cents for every $1 we spend, 
whether it is on a missile or a food stamp. The creditors--our 
creditors around the world--of course, get paid interest for loaning us 
money to cover our debt. The level of interest they are paid reflects 
their confidence that we will ultimately make payments and be good for 
the debt.
  Right now, you can pick up the newspaper and read what is going on in 
Greece. The Popoulias government barely survived this week because they 
have had to initiate austerity measures, cutbacks in spending that 
aren't politically popular. If they didn't, they were going to watch 
the Greek credit rating fall further and the cost of borrowing money go 
up even higher.
  So when the time comes on August 2, our deadline on our basic debt 
ceiling, our creditors around the world will look and see what happens. 
What happens, without fail, in the history of the United States, is we 
do the right thing and extend the debt ceiling. They say: Fine, so the 
full faith and credit of the United States can be relied on 
confidently. They can say they made another payment as they said they 
would, and we can go forward with our business.
  Now there is a hue and cry, primarily from the other party, that we 
should not pay any attention to this debt ceiling. We should ignore it. 
Many of them have made arguments which, frankly, are stunning.
  Just to give you a couple of examples, a colleague from the State of 
Pennsylvania, Senator Pat Toomey, said today that ``failure to raise 
the debt limit upon the deadline submitted by the Treasury Secretary 
does not equate to a default on our debt at all.''
  I will remind him what Ronald Reagan said:

       The full consequences of a default--or even the serious 
     prospect of default--by the United States are impossible to 
     predict and awesome to contemplate. . . . The Nation can ill 
     afford to allow such a result.

  Senator DeMint of South Carolina, a Republican, said:

       Republicans must do everything they can to block an 
     increase in the debt limit.

  Here is what the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, said:

       Failing to raise the debt ceiling in a timely way will be 
     self-defeating if the objective is to chart a course for the 
     better fiscal situation for our Nation.

  Congressman Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Republican Budget 
Committee, said that holders of U.S. Government debt would be willing 
to miss payments ``for a day or two or three or four.''
  Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, said this:

       Even a very short-term or limited default would have 
     catastrophic economic consequences that would last for 
     decades.

  Mr. President, I am not sure you follow the stock market, but if you 
did, today you know it is off. It is off because news about employment 
is not encouraging. Too many Americans are out of work. So there is a 
question mark about this economy and where it is headed. We are doing 
our best to turn it around, and I think we have done some good, but we 
need to do more. We can talk more about that.
  If we, for some reason, do not extend the debt limit of the United 
States, the credit rating of the United States would go down in the 
eyes of people who loan us money. What would happen next? As 
predictable as I stand here, interest rates would go up. People loaning 
money to the United States would say: If they are not going to extend 
the debt ceiling when they are supposed to, then we want to cover our 
bets and have a higher interest rate. What happens when the interest 
rate paid by the United States of America on its debt goes up? All 
interest rates go up. Interest rates would go up on people buying homes 
and cars and on businesses that want to expand or buy more inventory.
  Can you think of a worse thing at this moment in our economic 
history? Where the Federal Reserve has announced this week that they 
are going to try to keep interest rates down so we can get out of this 
recession, Congress, if it fails to meet its responsibility on the debt 
ceiling, would end up raising interest rates--exactly the opposite of 
what the Federal Reserve says we need to get the economy back on its 
feet and get America back to work.
  This is the introduction to a point I wish to make that has a lot to 
do with a speech made on the floor today. Senator McConnell, the 
Republican leader, came to the floor this morning to explain he has 
decided the Republicans will walk away from the budget negotiations 
with Vice President Biden. Congressman Cantor, a leader in the House of 
Representatives, and today Senator Kyl, one of our leaders in the 
Senate, have said that after weeks of sitting in the room with the Vice 
President trying to work out some kind of agreement on the budget 
deficit, they were walking out, and they did. The two Republican 
leaders in the room walked away from it.
  Senator McConnell said this this morning in explaining it:

       We're not in the majority. We can't sign anything into law. 
     That's the President's job. That's his job. He has acted as 
     if it is not his problem. This is his problem to solve.

  As if that wasn't bad enough, the House majority leader announced 
soon after that he will no longer participate in the bipartisan 
negotiations.
  Congressman Cantor said:

       It is up to the President to come in and talk to the 
     Speaker. We've reached the end of this phase.

  How does this break down? How does the Republican walkout on budget 
negotiations and the extension of the debt ceiling come together? We 
can't extend the debt ceiling without the support of the House 
Republican majority and without the support of Republicans in the 
Senate. They have said they will not vote for it unless we have an 
agreement on the budget.
  Well, the clock is ticking. At this point, we know August 2 is 
looming, and we know if we fail to extend the debt ceiling, it will be 
the worst thing we can do for the American economy at this moment in 
time. If there were ever a time when both political parties ought to 
stop making some of these speeches and come together and work it out, 
this is it. What it means is that both sides--our side, the Democrats, 
and their side, the Republicans--have to come together and put 
everything on the table. It means that some of the things we hold 
dearest, such as Medicare and Social Security and entitlement programs, 
we need to talk about their future in honest terms. It means that the 
Republican side has to come forward and accept the reality that we will 
need some new revenue to deal with our budget deficit situation. That 
is the reality.
  I only know this a little better than some because I spent the last 
year and a half working on it--on the President's deficit commission 
and with a group of four or five other Senators from both parties 
trying to come up with some kind of agreement. That is where we are 
today.

[[Page 9865]]

  This breakdown of the discussions on the Biden budget negotiations, 
because of the walkout of Congressman Cantor and Senator Kyl, is not 
promising. Next week, the Senate will be back in session, the House 
will not. It is one of their recess weeks. The following week, after 
the Fourth of July, we are out of session, and the House is back in. So 
for 2 weeks now, we are not going to have both Houses in Washington. 
That will make it more difficult to reach an agreement, but we have to 
do it.
  As bad as things are with this economy, if we send a signal that we 
are unable to responsibly lead on a bipartisan basis, I am afraid we 
are going to have very negative consequences. I implore the Republican 
leaders to reconsider their position. Walking away from their 
congressional responsibility to negotiate for a good budget agreement 
and to extend the debt ceiling is the height of economic 
irresponsibility. It would create a disaster that would touch innocent 
people across the United States and around the world. What we need to 
do--and it is so hard in this town--is to try to put this partisanship 
aside. At one point early in the session, the Republican leader said 
the most important thing we can achieve during the course of this 
session--I will quote him:

       The single most important thing we want to achieve is for 
     President Obama to be a one-term President.

  That was a quote Senator McConnell made several months ago. We are 
all partisan to some extent, but that isn't the most important thing 
Senator McConnell or Senator Durbin can achieve. The most important 
thing to do is to deal with our debt responsibly and get the economy 
moving forward in a bipartisan way. Running up filibusters on bill 
after bill on the floor of the Senate may give somebody a quick 
temporary victory, but it doesn't solve the problems we face. We need 
to work together to create jobs and pass legislation, get a budget 
agreement together, and extend the debt ceiling.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider 
this walkout from the budget negotiation. We need to work in good faith 
to solve the problems of this country. After all, that is why we were 
elected.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all first-
degree amendments to S. 679, with the exception of the managers' 
amendment, must be offered prior to the close of business today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, there will be no further rollcall votes 
today. The next vote will be Tuesday before the caucus. There will be 
no votes on Monday or tomorrow.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending Coburn amendment No. 500 be 
withdrawn; that when the Senate considers S. Res. 116, it be in order 
for Senator Coburn to offer his duplication amendment to the 
resolution; that there be up to 1 hour of debate on the amendment, 
equally divided between Senator Coburn and the majority leader or their 
designees; that the amendment be subject to a two-thirds threshold; 
that the amendment not be divisible; that no amendments, motions or 
points of order be in order prior to any vote in relation to the Coburn 
amendment other than budget points of order and the applicable motions 
to waive; and that all other provisions of the previous order with 
respect to the resolution remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, this is very much out of character, what 
I am getting ready to do, but this morning I was in a Foreign Relations 
hearing on Afghanistan and Pakistan and my staff tells me the majority 
leader came down and happened to castigate me for speaking about the 
fact we had not taken up some of the Nation's most important business 
this year; that we have spent a lot of time on bills that were not as 
important as our Nation's debt crisis and other kinds of things.
  I can't imagine there is anybody in this body who feels, as a 
Senator, and it being June 23, that we have taken up very serious 
business this year. I can't imagine there is anybody who is proud of 
what we have been able to accomplish this year as it relates to 
addressing our country's most pressing problems. And that was the point 
of the speech I made yesterday on the floor which, I might add, a 
number of Democrats have since come up to me and said they could not 
agree with me more.
  The point is we need to deal with our Nation's No. 1 crisis today, 
which is spending. I talked a little bit about what is happening with 
the Blair House negotiations and the fact that, basically, the goal the 
Blair House negotiators have attempted to achieve--their aspirational 
goal--probably is not strong enough for most people on either side of 
the aisle to support, and so we need to be far more serious about our 
country's spending problems.
  However, I know we are not busy, and when we are not busy, sometimes 
we say things we don't mean and we get ourselves in trouble. It is my 
understanding, again, that the majority leader came to the floor and 
found a quote I had made 2 years ago about EDA to try to, if you will, 
castigate me for the comments I made yesterday, which he said were out 
of line.
  I know we haven't taken up a budget in 785 days in the Senate. We 
have not taken up a budget. Two years ago a budget was passed out of 
committee, but there was an unwillingness to take up that budget on the 
floor. This year, the Budget Committee didn't even pass a budget out of 
committee. So here we have a country that is spending $1.5 trillion a 
year that we don't have--and borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we 
spend--but here in the Senate we are basically hoping others will solve 
this problem for us. Candidly, I hope that happens. I do hope we come 
to a conclusion sometime soon.
  I understand how the majority leader would be defensive. He is the 
majority leader of the Senate--the greatest deliberative body in the 
world, some say--and we haven't even taken up a budget to account for 
the $3.7 trillion we spend of our country's money each year. So I know 
he is embarrassed; I know he is defensive; and I understand that. But I 
would say that my words--the essence of what I said yesterday--still 
stand. This body has not done the serious work the Senate should do. We 
have a looming crisis coming before us, with a debt ceiling vote coming 
up on August 2 and, to my knowledge, there has been no public debate 
about solutions toward that.
  The Presiding Officer and myself have offered a bill called the CAP 
Act to try to deal with that. It is the only bipartisan, bicameral act 
that has been introduced in both bodies. It certainly is not the total 
solution to our problem, but that, coupled with other fixes--some 
Medicare fixes, coupled with a 302(a) top line for a couple of years--
to me is the essence of something that might solve our country's 
problems.
  I have tried to offer some constructive solutions to our problem. I 
know the Presiding Officer has tried to offer some constructive 
solutions. To me, those are the kinds of things we here in the Senate 
should be dealing with today. The markets, rightfully so--and very 
soon, as they should--will become very volatile. It is my opinion we 
are

[[Page 9866]]

close to a potential trainwreck. I know people have pulled away from 
the Blair House negotiations, and my sense is the two sides are very 
much in disarray at this point. There have been numbers of public 
comments that have been put forth. Again, I come back to the Senate, 
where we have gone 785 days without even taking up a budget.
  So again, I know the majority leader is defensive and embarrassed, 
and I understand why he would be, but I stand by my comments yesterday.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and 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. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Whitehouse pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1271 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 493

  Mr. KIRK. On behalf of Senator McCain, I call up amendment No. 493.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Kirk], for Mr. McCain, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 493.

  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To preserve congressional oversight into the budget overruns 
              of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation)

       Strike section 2(w).

  Mr. KIRK. I ask to be recognized for 10 minutes as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Afghanistan

  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, under General Petraeus, the deployment of 
a local army is critical to winning a war. In Iraq he used extra U.S. 
troops to sustain military momentum against an enemy until a well-
trained local Army was trained and ready for action. Petraeus had the 
time he needed to stand up a 500,000-man local Army and then won the 
war. This has also been his model for Afghanistan. While Iraq and 
Afghanistan differ, the military challenge was the same: to train and 
deploy a local army that could sustain a fight until victory.
  Starting with nothing, the United States and our NATO allies set a 
goal of building an Afghan Army and police force to eventually number 
400,000. By reaching this goal, the combat mission of the U.S. and 
other NATO forces would disappear. We would remain helpful with 
supplies, repair and intelligence, but not frontline combat.
  I agreed with President Obama's decision to surge to Afghanistan, and 
I was in the audience to show my support when he delivered a historic 
address at West Point. By following the recommendations of General 
Petraeus, Secretary Gates and others, President Obama gave the United 
States and our NATO allies the time needed to vastly expand the Afghan 
police and army.
  Unfortunately, the President has changed course from establishing a 
sufficient Afghan security force before scaling down our military 
presence. To date, the Afghan police and army are short of their 
400,000-man goal. As of April, there were 284,000 in both services, 
well over 100,000 people short.
  Overall, the Afghan Army loses 32 percent of its personnel a year, 
while its police lose 23 percent. To expand the security forces, losses 
must be held to 24 percent annually. Therefore, according to our 
National Military Training Mission in Afghanistan, the commander of 
that training effort, General Caldwell, must train 23 Afghans for every 
10 to be deployed. We find key shortfalls in the officer corps and 
among noncommissioned officers. To date, 82 percent of Afghan officer 
billets are not filled, along with 85 percent of noncommissioned 
sergeants and corporals. The Afghan Army is also short of recruits from 
the communities where the fighting is most difficult. Only 3 percent of 
the Afghan Army was born in the southern Pashtun regions where Afghan 
leaders traditionally originate.
  The Afghan Army is also lacking in literacy. In 2008, only 14 percent 
of Afghan military personnel could read or write. Now, thanks to 
General Caldwell, that number has grown to 85 percent in both the 
police and Army. One of the critical factors in training an Afghan Army 
that can win this war is the number of NATO trainers. To date the 
training command lacks over 700 trainers due to personnel shortfalls 
among our NATO allies. Each of these facts paints a clear picture of a 
work in progress but one that is about to be strained by the 
President's decision to leave Afghanistan 2 years too early. Under the 
original Petraeus plan, the United States and NATO would have deployed 
an Afghan police and military numbering 400,000 by 2014. Having trained 
together for 1 year or more, these Afghan units would likely endure the 
stress of combat and deliver victory in 2015 or 2016.
  Unfortunately, the President has rejected his general's 
recommendations and decided to leave early--withdrawing one U.S. 
brigade combat team right away. Our NATO allies express quiet concern 
about this departure. U.S. and local commanders will have about 12 
percent of their combat power taken off the battlefield right away. The 
President will then remove two more brigade combat teams by the 
election day in 2012, leaving U.S. and local commanders with only 66 
percent of the current combat power.
  These actions will severely strain the Afghan police and Army, just 
as Afghanistan prepares for a new Presidential election. It also 
provides some hope for the Taliban, whose strategy may be a 12-month 
rest and refit of their operations to then reenter the battlefield 
against a much weaker enemy in 2013.
  We learned a painful lesson when we ignored Afghanistan in 1992. 
Without any domestic oil or a coastline, the United States paid no 
attention to the rise of the Taliban and al-Qaida, and we paid an awful 
price for that policy on September 11, 2001. In my view, the lesson of 
that day should move us to realize that the Petraeus plan should have 
been fully implemented and not ended early.
  Separately, I would like to take a moment to applaud our Treasury 
Department and especially our Acting Under Secretary, David Cohen, for 
moving decisively today to designate Iran Air and a major Iranian port 
operator, Tidewater, responsible for facilitating Iran's transfer of 
weapons and other proliferation activities.
  Both of these Treasury designations will significantly restrict 
shipping to and from Iran and will put even more pressure on the 
Iranian economy. Under Secretary Cohen has proven himself to be a 
worthy successor to former Under Secretary Levey, and he has my 
confidence.
  In the weeks ahead, I urge the administration to move forward with 
our allies in Europe and Asia to implement a comprehensive strategy to 
collapse the Central Bank of Iran. The Central Bank of Iran facilitates 
the operations of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the 
Ministry of Intelligence Services and lies at the center of Iran's 
strategy to circumvent international sanctions. It is time for the 
United States and our allies to decapitate the Central Bank of Iran and 
to place unprecedented stress on the Iranian economy.
  With that, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Deficit Crisis

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I think many Americans understand we are 
at a pivotal moment in American

[[Page 9867]]

history, and decisions that will be made in the Senate, decisions that 
will be made in the House, decisions that will be made in the White 
House regarding the budget and how we deal with the debt ceiling will 
impact virtually every American--our children, working families, 
seniors--virtually every American for decades to come. The stakes are 
huge. The debate is not just about a budget but the question of which 
direction America goes forward in.
  Today, the Republican leaders--Eric Cantor in the House, Jon Kyl in 
the Senate--withdrew from the bipartisan budget talks that have been 
led by Vice President Biden. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican 
leader in the Senate, and Senator Kyl said:

       The White House and Democrats are insisting on job-killing 
     tax hikes and new spending.
       President Obama needs to decide between his goal of higher 
     taxes or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit. He can't 
     have both. But we need to hear from him.

  We need to hear from the President.
  I agree with Senator Kyl and Senator McConnell that we need--the 
American people need, the Senate needs--to hear from President Obama on 
this enormously important issue. But I believe we need to hear from the 
President in a very different way than what Senator Kyl and Senator 
McConnell and Congressman Cantor want to hear.
  Here is where we are in America today, and this is what the debate is 
about: Virtually every American understands that, to a very significant 
degree, the middle class in this country is disappearing. Median family 
income has gone down by $2,500 in the last 10 years. Many millions of 
workers today are earning lower wages than they used to earn. They are 
moving in the wrong direction.
  In a recent 25-year period, ending in 2005, 80 percent of all new 
income did not go to the middle class. It went to the people on top. So 
the overall dynamic of America now: The middle class is collapsing, 
poverty is increasing, young people are finding it very difficult to 
get decent-paying jobs. While all that is going on, the people on top 
have never had it so good. Almost all new income is going to the top 1 
percent.
  There was an interesting piece in the Washington Post this Sunday 
talking about the growing gap between the very rich and everybody else. 
Wall Street, whose thievery and illegal behavior and recklessness 
caused this recession, is now making more money for their executives 
than they did before the recession they helped cause.
  The top 1 percent is earning more income than the bottom 50 percent. 
The top 1 percent alone is earning 22 percent of all income in America. 
The top 400 individuals in this country own more wealth than the bottom 
150 million.
  I know the Presiding Officer has made the point about the gross 
inequities and unfairness in our tax system, that while the middle 
class is sinking, the people on top have been able to enjoy effective 
tax rates that are the lowest in recorded history, that janitors, cops, 
nurses--working people today--are paying an effective tax rate that is 
higher than millionaires and billionaires.
  That is the reality economically this country faces today, and then 
that is the reality we have to deal with as we move toward a budget.
  Every single poll I have seen says what is obvious: that if we are 
going to address the deficit crisis, it must be done in a way that is 
fair, that everybody participates in.
  Our Republican friends have a very unusual idea about how to solve 
the deficit crisis. Yes, they say the rich are getting richer. Yes, 
they say corporations are doing phenomenally well. Some are making 
billions of dollars in profits, not paying a nickel in taxes. Yes, they 
understand the gap between the very rich and everybody else is growing 
wider, and their quaint and interesting idea, in the midst of that 
context, is that while the rich get richer, they should not be asked to 
contribute one nickel--not one penny--for deficit reduction.
  Quite the contrary, under the Republican budget passed in the House, 
the so-called Ryan budget, while the rich get richer and corporations 
enjoy recordbreaking profits, their budget proposes $1 trillion more in 
tax breaks for the rich and large corporations.
  Meanwhile, while the middle class disappears and poverty increases, 
their idea for deficit reduction is to make savage cuts in programs the 
middle class and working families depend upon to survive--to survive.
  Under the Republican budget, they would end Medicare as we know it in 
a 10-year period. They propose to give a senior citizen an $8,000 
check, a voucher, and have that senior go out and get an insurance plan 
with a private insurance company.
  Tell me what kind of plan a 70-year-old person dealing with cancer or 
another illness is going to get with an $8,000 voucher? Are they living 
in the real world? Do they know what hospital care costs today? You eat 
up $8,000 in the first day. Yet that is what a senior is supposed to 
live on for health care for 1 year.
  But it is not only ending Medicare as we know it in order to give tax 
breaks to billionaires; it is savage cuts in Medicaid. Half the people 
on Medicaid are children. We are the only country today in the 
industrialized world that does not guarantee health care to all its 
people. Fifty million people are uninsured. If you cut Medicaid by $700 
billion over a 10-year period, tens of millions more, including a lot 
of kids, will have no health insurance. They get sick. Working-class 
parents, where are they going to get the care? How do they get the 
care? I guess we have to do that in order to give a tax break to a 
large corporation that already is not paying anything in taxes.
  Let me mention, for a moment, what is a fair way--a fair way--to move 
toward deficit reduction in a way the American people overwhelmingly 
support. You go out and you ask the American people: Do you think it 
makes sense, in terms of addressing the serious problem with deficit 
reduction, to give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the richest people and 
make savage cuts in programs that working people need in health care, 
education, nutrition, environmental protection? The overwhelming 
majority of the American people say that is nuts; it does not make any 
sense; we must not go in that direction.
  So when my Republican friends in the leadership say: There is a lot 
of responsibility now on the President, the President has to decide 
which direction he wants this country to go, they are right. My hope is 
the President of the United States listens to the American people and 
demands that deficit reduction consist of shared sacrifice, that we 
move toward deficit reduction not just on the backs of the elderly and 
the children and the sick and the poor but that everybody--I know even 
people who make large campaign contributions--I know that is heresy to 
say on the floor of the Senate--but maybe even large corporations that 
buy and sell politicians, maybe they should be asked to contribute 
toward deficit reduction. Maybe billionaires, who have more money than 
they are going to spend in 100 lifetimes, might be asked to pay 
somewhat more in taxes before we throw children off our health 
insurance or deny nutrition to low-income seniors.
  There are many ways to go forward in addressing the deficit crisis 
that is fair, that does not decimate programs working families depend 
on, especially in the middle of a severe recession.
  Let me mention very few. We should not extend the tax breaks 
President Bush gave the wealthiest people in this country. That is it. 
We have a $1.5 trillion deficit, a $14 trillion-plus national debt. 
Sorry, we cannot afford it. These guys have already received huge tax 
breaks. No more. We cannot afford it.
  We have to take a hard look at our defense budget. We have to begin 
bringing the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan a lot faster than 
the President has indicated. The defense budget has tripled since 1997. 
It has tripled. It is time to make cuts in the defense budget. We can 
do that while maintaining our strong defense capabilities.

[[Page 9868]]

  There are studies which indicate that large corporations and wealthy 
individuals are stashing huge amounts of money in tax havens such as 
the Cayman Islands and Bermuda, and collectively they are avoiding 
paying $100 billion in taxes to the U.S. Treasury. I think that is 
absurd. We have to end those loopholes. They have to pay their fair 
share of taxes.
  I can go on and on in terms of loopholes that exist for corporate 
America which have to be closed, the absurdity of the richest people in 
this country having an effective, a real tax rate lower than middle-
class people.
  But here is the issue if the Republicans walk away from those 
negotiations. The President of the United States has to accept that 
challenge. He has to go out to the American people. He has to rally the 
American people around a deficit reduction program which calls for 
shared sacrifice. That is what the call of the moment is. I hope the 
President does that.


                           Amendment No. 512

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Akaka, I call up 
amendment No. 512.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for Mr. Akaka, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 512.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To preserve Senate confirmation of the Commissioner of the 
                  Administration for Native Americans)

       On page 48, strike lines 4 through 9.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                            Another Stimulus

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am reading in press reports that some of 
my colleagues across the aisle are advocating another stimulus package, 
sometimes called government investment, otherwise called spending 
taxpayers' money that we do not have and borrowing it from our children 
and most immediately from the Chinese, who own $1 trillion of our 
national debt. It is astonishing to me that after the last stimulus 
package early in 2009 failed to meet the President's own stated target 
of keeping unemployment to 8 percent or lower, some of our colleagues 
are trying to double down on a bad deal by advocating more stimulus, 
when 43 cents out of every dollar that is being spent in America today 
is borrowed money.
  I mention that the President in his speech on Afghanistan last night 
said the Federal Government needs to invest more. Well, I do not think 
anybody should be fooled by what he really means when he says the 
Federal Government must invest. The only money the Federal Government 
has is the money that comes from your wallet, from taxpayers. When 
there is not enough money coming in to keep up with the reckless 
spending habits of Washington, DC, then they simply borrow the money or 
print money we do not have, and that is what ``investment'' means when 
the President talks about needing to invest more Federal Government 
money.
  On the same day the President spoke, the Congressional Budget Office 
released a report that shows the Federal Government spending spree is 
not sustainable, and the Nation's fiscal position is getting worse. I 
do not think that is breaking news. I think most Americans could tell 
you that was the case, at least intuitively already.
  Over the last 2 years, the Nation's debt has dramatically worsened. 
Gross Federal debt is expected to equal 100 percent of our entire 
economy in just 3 months--well past the 90-percent threshold where many 
economists believe the debt will seriously undermine economic growth. 
Some studies show that this increased debt, which crowds out private 
investment and borrowing, may result in the loss of at least 1 million 
jobs a year.
  But getting back to my initial point about this stimulus notion in 
the negotiations with Vice President Biden over raising the debt 
ceiling, it seems that many have forgotten the trillion-dollar stimulus 
package passed back in 2009, that the ``green shoots'' predicted never 
materialized, that the ``recovery summer'' never happened, and, as I 
say, it failed to keep unemployment below the targeted rate of 8 
percent. Indeed, now it hovers nationwide at a rate of 9.1 percent. It 
is much worse in many regions of the country. Only in Washington, DC, 
would someone advocate a repetition of a program that we know has 
failed to meet its stated goals and was, I believe, a total flop. First 
of all, it was borrowed money, so it wasn't even spending money that we 
had, it was exacerbating an already dangerously high debt. The first 
stimulus failed for one reason--because of our massive deficits in jobs 
and our budget.
  We know the American people believe, as the Gallup organization tells 
us, a large majority of Americans believe that spending too much money 
on unneeded and wasteful government programs is to blame for Federal 
budget deficits. And if you ask any business owner--anyone, really, 
outside of the beltway--the reason why jobs are just not coming back, 
it is in large part because of the uncertainty of what is coming out of 
Washington, not only legislatively but as a regulatory matter, whether 
it is the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Labor--all 
the alphabet soup of Federal agencies that exist here in Washington, 
DC.
  Instead of passing another unpaid-for stimulus plan or issuing more 
job-killing regulations, our focus should remain on ways to reduce and 
reform government spending and thereby help get the economy moving 
again. In fact, I think we need to force the Congress and the Federal 
Government to live within its means by passing a balanced budget 
amendment to the Constitution and this should be the focus of our 
efforts here over the next couple of months as we tackle not only this 
unsustainable debt and these huge annual deficits but as we look for 
ways to put a straitjacket on the Federal Government to make sure it 
doesn't keep spending money it does not have. No families, no 
business--as a matter of fact, 49 States have balanced budget 
requirements. Only the Federal Government and only Congress can 
continue to spend money we don't have.
  A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would 
permanently change Washington's behavior. So far, 47 Senators in the 
Senate on this side of the aisle have endorsed and cosponsored a 
balanced budget amendment. We would invite our colleagues across the 
aisle to join us in this effort.
  In summary, we need to unburden the economy from regulatory 
uncertainty or in some cases the certainty that the bureaucracy will 
overreach and make it harder, not easier, to create jobs. We need to 
pass free-trade agreements that should be pending before the Senate to 
help create more jobs here at home by producing things here that we can 
then sell abroad. Then we need to develop our domestic energy 
production with the great gifts we have been given in this country. I 
know the Presiding Officer, coming from an energy-producing State--
Alaska--agrees with me that we need to produce more domestic energy, 
which will also have the added benefit of creating jobs right here in 
America rather than continuing the bad habit and the dangerous habit of 
importing about 60 percent of our energy from abroad, from some 
dangerous parts of the world.
  I wish to close with a couple of other thoughts.
  Listening to my colleague from Vermont calling for shared sacrifice 
in meeting some of the deficit reduction plans, I would just suggest to 
the distinguished Senator that 9.1-percent unemployment reflects a lot 
of sacrifice among a lot of people who can't find jobs in this bad 
economy. That is shared sacrifice, but that is a sacrifice which I know 
they and we would prefer they did not have to share. When you don't 
have a job, it is pretty hard to make your mortgage payments, and when 
you can't make your mortgage payments or you can't move because your 
mortgage is more expensive than the value of your home--your home is

[[Page 9869]]

underwater--you are simply stuck. A lot of people are finding 
themselves defaulting on their mortgages and losing their homes, which 
is usually the largest single investment any of us will make.
  I want to close on this thought. I want to ask my colleagues across 
the aisle who have been so critical of the proposals that have been 
made by the House of Representatives and others, where is your plan? 
Where is your budget? It has been 2 years since the Congress has passed 
a budget, since it has been in control of our Democratic friends. Where 
is your plan to save Medicare, which the Medicare trustees have said 
will go insolvent--that means there is more money going out than coming 
in--by the year 2024? How do we keep the promise to our most vulnerable 
seniors that Medicare will be there for them if we don't do something 
to shore up this insolvent program?
  Unfortunately, I believe the President is listening too closely to 
his political advisers rather than listening to those who are telling 
him: Mr. President, we have a problem we need to solve. The first place 
he ought to look for a proposed solution is his own bipartisan fiscal 
commission that reported back in December in a report, 66 pages long. 
It is scary but important reading. The title of that is ``The Moment of 
Truth.''
  We have reached a crossroads in this country where we simply cannot 
kick the can down the road, where we cannot keep spending money we 
don't have, where we cannot keep relying upon Communist China to buy 
our debt and to bail us out. We simply cannot continue to pass these 
responsibilities on to our children and grandchildren. We have 
important promises to keep to our seniors, to make sure that safety net 
of Medicare and Social Security is going to be there for them, but we 
can't do it unless we have willing partners join us across the aisle.
  Right now, the only one in this country who is in a position to make 
this happen is the President of the United States, but so far the 
President has been AWOL on this issue. After his bipartisan fiscal 
commission issued the report I referred to a moment ago in December of 
2010, in his State of the Union speech, the President barely mentioned, 
if at all, this mounting debt crisis and the problems with the pending 
insolvency of Medicare and Social Security.
  The budget that the President proposed was never acted on by the 
majority leader or the Budget Committee on which I sit. And being in 
the minority, we can't force this issue; it can only happen if the 
chairman of the Budget Committee marks up a budget and if the majority 
leader, Senator Harry Reid across the aisle, will put it on the floor 
of the Senate where we can debate it and offer amendments. But they 
chose not to do so, relying instead on their political consultants who 
said: You know, if you offer a constructive proposal, there may be some 
across the aisle who will criticize it, and, you know what, you may 
just have to take some hard votes.
  Well, anybody who has come to the Senate who isn't willing to vote 
their convictions, whatever those convictions are, and be held 
accountable by their constituents back home doesn't deserve to be in 
the Congress. We are here to take hard votes and to make hard decisions 
because it is not about us and our political career, and it is not 
about the next election; it is about addressing these problems we have 
been sent here to try to fix the best we can under the circumstances.
  It is beyond unbelievable when I hear some of our colleagues across 
the aisle--the senior Senator from New York, among others--talking 
about another stimulus spending as part of this debt reduction deal.
  Beyond that, we have the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee 
making clear that an insistence on tax increases was a central element 
of any deal on raising the debt limit. The Vice President himself was 
quoted as saying, in the Politico publication:

       The piece that is most important to us Democrats--revenue.

  The word ``revenue'' is Washington-speak for tax increases. The 
President and Republicans and Democrats got together after the last 
election and agreed to extend expiring tax provisions because all of us 
agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that the worst thing we could do for a 
fragile, recovering economy was to raise taxes on small businesses, 
which are the engine of job creation, and on individuals who would be 
able to then invest that money into starting a business or growing an 
existing business.
  There is a reason the private sector is afraid of Washington, DC. 
They see these mounting debts and deficits, and they realize one of the 
things we might be tempted to do is raise their taxes. Do you know 
what. The business model for their small business may not be able to 
withstand that tax increase or the regulatory overreach of some Federal 
Washington bureaucrat. So they are scared, and they are sitting on the 
sidelines.
  The two things we need to do the most are to bring down that spending 
curve by reducing Federal Government spending and begin to attack that 
debt and make sure we don't have to keep raising the credit limit on 
the Nation's credit card but, rather, we can bring it down, and within 
sustainable limits. Second, we need to take our boot off the neck of 
the private sector, the free enterprise system in America, so it can 
create jobs, grow businesses, and pay taxes. We can begin to close the 
gap between what the Federal Government is spending and what it brings 
in in terms of revenue.
  In 2007, when our Democratic friends took control of the House and 
Senate, President Bush was still President of the United States, and 
our annual deficit was roughly 1.2 percent of our GDP, our entire 
economy. Today, it is roughly 10 percent. The reason it was 1.2 percent 
is not because we weren't spending a significant amount of money; we 
were. It was because the economy was booming and revenue to the Federal 
Treasury was at an all-time high. That should tell us that we need to 
do two things: cut spending, not just raise taxes so Washington can 
spend some more and throw a wet blanket on the economy and the job 
creators, we need to cut spending and fix these entitlement programs so 
we can keep our promise to our seniors who are relying on these 
programs. We also need to get the economy moving again by growing jobs 
in the private sector and by adopting a national energy policy that 
says we prefer domestic, or American, energy sources rather than those 
from abroad.
  Mr. President, we need to do it soon. I am saddened to see that as a 
result of the insistence on the part of the Vice President and our 
friends across the aisle that tax increases must be a part of any 
package of debt reduction; that the majority leader in the House of 
Representatives and the assistant minority leader in the Senate, 
Senator Kyl, have reached an impasse and said they don't see any point 
in continuing the negotiations at this point.
  I hope the Vice President, or indeed the President of the United 
States himself, who is the only Democrat who can get this deal done, 
will reconsider their approach and work with Republicans to live within 
our means, reduce spending, and try to get our economy moving again so 
we can alleviate our children from the debt burden they are inheriting 
from us.
  Every child born in America today will come into this world with 
$46,000, roughly, in debt. That is because of what we have not been 
doing, which is living within our means. It is time to do that, and we 
need to work together to solve the problem.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we heard an announcement today that the 
so-called ``Biden talks'' have broken down. It is not something that 
surprises me terribly. I have always said

[[Page 9870]]

that I didn't think this was the right approach--to negotiate in secret 
some of the most important decisions this Nation has to make.
  In truth, we have never been in a more severe financial condition 
than we are today. Many remember the government shutdown in the 1990s 
and the fact the Nation ended up, out of that difficult contentious 
time, balancing the budget in 3 years. Well, I serve on the Budget 
Committee--the Presiding Officer is an able member of the Budget 
Committee--and we know it is not going to be easy. It is going to be 
very difficult to get this country on the right financial course. So I 
think the decision of the House majority leader and Senator Kyl to 
withdraw from the negotiations over the debt ceiling underscores the 
inherent problems with this kind of nonpublic meetings, designed to 
come up with some global, comprehensive settlement of apparently all 
our financial difficulties. It is just not easy.
  I think it underscores additionally a very important fact: that a 
President cannot lead from behind in dealing with the most pressing 
crisis our Nation faces--our exploding debt and the increasing damage 
that the debt is doing to the American economy right now. It is taking 
too long for a proposal to be presented to the Congress, and it is 
clear now that optimistic statements about progress have been too 
generous. It will be unacceptable for the White House talks, or any 
talks, to produce a controversial agreement at the eleventh hour and to 
then come before Congress in a panic and say: You have to enact this 
solution we came up with in secret, or the country will have a serious 
debt crisis.
  That is the path we are heading down, just as we did with the CR--the 
continuing resolution--that was passed. That is not what the American 
people want; that is not what they deserve. They want regular order. 
They want Congress to have the opportunity to debate and vote. If it 
takes weeks--and it should take weeks for us to work through a 
challenge as serious as this one--then so be it. It just takes weeks. 
If it takes hundreds of votes, with people going on record and being 
criticized back home by one group or another for the vote they cast, so 
be it. That is what we are paid to do, and we are not guaranteed 
reelection. That seems basic to me.
  Congress and the American people deserve an opportunity to fully 
review and consider any debt limit deal that is struck behind closed 
doors.
  It has also been reported--in one publication at least--that in order 
to make the numbers look better, we are going to resort to certain 
budget gimmicks. In other words, let's say we eliminate a $100 million 
program. Well, we have been talking about how much that would save over 
10 years, whether it would save $100 million over 10 years. That would 
be $1 billion. One of the gimmicks that was floated around, and was in 
fact used in the President's debt plan, was to say that we are going to 
do it over 12 years instead of 10 years as the deficit commission 
recommended. So we haven't actually cut any more; we have just added a 
couple of years to the timeframe that we are considering to make it 
seem like we reached the goal.
  We have had gimmicks in which a big military payment to soldiers or a 
Social Security payment falling near the end of the month is pushed 
over to the next fiscal year--so it is due on September 30, and they 
make it payable October 1--and the numbers look better. We don't show 
the expenditure, but it is still there. The money is still going to be 
spent. Nothing has been changed except the date when the money is paid. 
These so gimmicks are unacceptable. Any plan that is presented on this 
floor, however it comes forward, must be free of gimmicks and 
accounting tricks. It must be an honest, fact-based budget. 
Additionally, raising the debt ceiling should not be accomplished by 
tax hikes. A punishing tax increase would not only threaten the growth 
we have to have in our economy, but it would also give a free pass to 
the egregious overspending of Washington. It would bail out the big 
spending excesses that have been put in place here. This overspending 
behavior is morally and economically culpable for our current crisis.
  Federal Government spending already controls nearly 25 percent of our 
economy. It amounts to that much--the highest we have ever had. Some of 
that is because the economy is down. Some of it is because spending is 
up. But 25 percent of the economy is now driven by the Federal 
Government, with tax money and borrowed money. Sixty percent of what 
they spend is tax money; 40 percent-plus is borrowed. We take in $2.2 
trillion, and we spend $3.7 trillion. That is why all the experts tell 
us this is unsustainable--and we know it is true. That is why we cannot 
do business as usual. That is why we have to do something. And that is 
why the House of Representatives produced a budget that cut spending. 
Some people didn't like it, but unless we have massive tax increases--
tax increase that will damage the economy--we have to reduce spending; 
right? Certainly this is correct. So that is where we are.
  The difficulty is the spending and the resulting debt that is 
projected by the Congressional Budget Office--at least as they have 
analyzed the budget presented by the President. The current spending 
path, if it is just continued, is very dangerous. They are setting us 
on an even worse path.
  Now, the President did submit a budget to the Congress. I offered it, 
and it was voted down 97 to 0. It made the already unacceptable debt 
path we were on much worse. Indeed, it would have doubled the country's 
debt, from $13 trillion to $27 trillion in 10 years. That is the path 
they projected, and the debt in the out years would be increasing, not 
decreasing; an unsustainable path.
  So, ultimately, the numbers we have been hearing--like $2 trillion in 
cuts--are not sufficient. It is only a part of what we would have to do 
to get our country on a sound fiscal path. We hear this figure--that we 
need $2 trillion in cuts. A lot of people don't realize that the House 
budget reduces spending by $6 trillion over the next 12 years. By the 
way, over the next 12 years we are projected to add $13 trillion to the 
national debt, doubling it. So cutting $6 trillion is pretty 
significant. It requires us to take firm action.
  This makes some people uneasy. They think we can't cut that much. But 
many of our States and cities and counties have been cutting more than 
that on a percentage basis, and they are going to survive. They know 
they have to live within their means, but Washington has not gotten 
that message.
  It is rumored that an unseen draft of the Senate Democratic budget 
proposes only $1.5 trillion in cuts. This is according to reports. They 
have tried to make the number bigger by counting interest savings, 
including those from tax hikes. This is a gimmick, because $1 in 
spending cuts is not equivalent to $1 in tax hikes. It just simply is 
not.
  Cutting spending restores economic confidence and makes room for 
private sector growth. Studies show that this approach results in more 
significant deficit reduction. Cutting spending allows us to pursue a 
more competitive Tax Code. Hiking taxes is a less successful way to 
trim the deficit. That is the reality. Hiking taxes punishes families 
for the waste of Washington, and it enables a bloated government that 
needs to be trimmed and whipped into shape.
  Raising taxes to pay for excessive government spending is a refusal 
to recognize there are limits to how much we can spend and how much we 
can tax. There is a limit to how much we can spend and how much we can 
tax if we want to be a government of democratic ideals, freedom, and 
free markets; and limited government is what our Founders intended.
  A plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion and only cut $2 trillion 
in actual spending contains only a fraction of the savings we can and 
must achieve. That is my firm view, and I think we have many people in 
Washington, including, I have to say, our President, who are in denial 
about the challenges and difficulties we face.
  This is not a situation in which a few little cuts here and there can 
put us on the path to fiscal solvency and get us

[[Page 9871]]

off the path to fiscal destruction. It is going to take stronger steps, 
the kind of steps they are taking in New York State, the kind of steps 
Governor Christie is taking in New Jersey. We are not even reaching the 
level of cuts Governor Brown has achieved in California or what the 
English are doing in the U.K. We have to wise up. We cannot continue 
down this path.
  Let me share a few other thoughts about debt because debt is a 
dangerous thing. It hurts us right now. Most of us have gotten into the 
habit of saying we are worried about our children and our 
grandchildren, and certainly we are worried about their future because 
of the debt burden we are placing on their shoulders. But the truth is, 
the debt threatens us right now. It is a danger to our economy. It is a 
danger and it is a drag on the economy. Let me explain how debt 
destroys jobs and why this Senate should pass a budget.
  The House of Representatives has passed a budget; they have made it 
public and they have defended it and explained it. Let's see what the 
Senate Democratic majority will do about a budget.
  Higher debt leads to slower economic growth. Empirical studies show 
that high levels of government debt inhibit economic growth by creating 
uncertainty, displacing needed private investment and placing upward 
pressure on interest rates and raising burden on the government itself 
through interest payments on the debt.
  For example, the very well-respected and much commented-on study by 
Reinhart and Rogoff, Harvard and University of Maryland economists, 
found that in advanced economies with gross government debt above 90 
percent of GDP--in other words, a total debt equal to 90 percent or 
above the size of the American economy--median economic growth tends to 
be between 1 and 2 percent lower, depending on the time period 
analyzed, when compared to countries with lower debt-to-GDP ratios.
  What do we mean by 1 percent to 2 percent lower? In the first quarter 
of this year, we were expecting almost 3 percent growth. In reality, it 
was shockingly lower. It adversely impacted the stock market. What did 
it come in at? 1.8 percent. The second quarter may not be so good 
either. We are already above 90 percent of debt to GDP; so presumably, 
if this study is accurate, we should have been at 2.8 percent growth. 
In a sense, it is not a 1-percent reduction; it is 36 percent less than 
the growth we need to have.
  Another study has shown that 1 percent growth in the gross domestic 
product, 1 percent growth in our economy, creates 1 million jobs.
  When asked about this Reinhart-Rogoff study, President Obama's 
Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, told the Budget Committee 
he considered it an excellent study--not only that, he told us in the 
committee he thought it underestimated the problem. Because when you 
get debt the size of 90 to 100 percent of GDP--and we are projected to 
reach 100 percent of GDP as our debt by the end of this year--he said 
it creates the danger of an economic crisis, some sort of spasm like we 
had when we had the financial crisis or even something similar to 
Greece. Something that could put us into another recession, which would 
be the worst thing that could happen to our economy.
  That is why this is serious business. We are feeling the impact of 
this debt right now. It is pulling down economic growth. It is costing 
us jobs. It is creating uncertainty and fear in the marketplace. We 
have to get off of it.
  President Obama appointed the fiscal commission, cochaired by Alan 
Simpson, a former Senator, and Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to 
President Clinton. Erskine Bowles and Senator Simpson told the Budget 
Committee we are facing the most predictable debt crisis in this 
Nation's history--the most predictable economic crisis in our Nation's 
history.
  In other words, they explained that the debt trajectory we are on 
guarantees an economic crisis. The question is when.
  So that is why we have to change. We don't want to have to cut any 
spending. The last thing politicians want to do is cut spending. The 
reason we are talking about this is because we have to. I do believe 
President Obama deserves severe criticism for not being out front 
leading on this, not telling the American people what his own experts 
are telling him. This was his expert, Mr. Bowles, and his Treasury 
Secretary, Mr. Geithner, telling us we have to change the debt path we 
are on. He needs to help explain to the American people why this is 
necessary, while it will be painful in the short run, but it can put us 
on the road to prosperity and not on the road to decline.
  Other studies, including Caner, Grennes, and Koehler-Geib's 2010 
study of 99 countries between 1980 and 2008, reached a similar 
conclusion about debt.
  Successful debt-reduction measures relying on spending cuts, not tax 
increases, have consistently resulted in stronger economic growth. 
Research from Harvard economist Alberto Alesina, as well as a Goldman 
Sachs report, found that fiscal consolidations--reductions in 
spending--that focused on cutting government spending, including on 
subsidies, transfer payments, and government worker pensions, were 
successful in cutting fiscal imbalances, typically boosted economic 
growth, and were followed by improved equity--that is the stock 
market--and bond market performance. That is what their study found, an 
empirical study by Goldman Sachs and a professor from Harvard, 
economist Alberto Alesina--not Jeff Sessions. These are independent 
analyses.
  Examples of successful spending reductions include Canada, which is 
in some ways doing far better than we are. We are at 9.1 percent 
unemployment and our unemployment numbers still seem to be going up; 
whereas, Canada is at about 7.1 percent and going down.
  New Zealand had a dramatic turnaround in the early 1990s. They went 
from 22 consecutive years of deficit spending to now 16 years of 
surpluses. It was a deliberate, systematic decision by the people of 
New Zealand through their government to change what they were doing. 
They reduced spending. They created ways to make sure the government 
was productive and saved money. They privatized a lot of activities the 
government had taken over that didn't need to be government functions, 
and the country has been progressing solidly ever since.
  Financial markets have issued dire warnings about the consequences of 
our inaction. Against the backdrop of a spreading euro zone debt 
crisis, the International Monetary Fund--certainly not a rightwing 
organization--the International Monetary Fund recently urged the United 
States to act swiftly to address its soaring budget deficits saying: 
``You cannot afford to have a world economy where these important 
decisions are postponed.''
  The credit rating agencies Moody's and S&P have warned that they may 
place the U.S. Government's AAA bond rating under review for a possible 
downgrade within months.
  Bill Gross, the head of PIMCO, the largest bond fund in the world, 
with hundreds of billions of dollars invested, has ceased buying U.S. 
Government Treasurys. None of that is in his portfolio. He said 
recently that what we are doing with our economy through the Fed, with 
this quantitative easing, and the government with its worthless 
stimulus package, is what he called a sugar high, not real, a temporary 
surge that has not changed the circumstances we are in. He is a man who 
deals every day with investments, and he has ceased to invest in U.S. 
Treasurys.
  Yet the Nation has operated without a budget now for 785 days. The 
Democratically led Senate, even when they had a huge majority last 
year, perhaps the biggest majority in my lifetime--I can't remember a 
party having 60 votes in the Senate, when that last occurred--didn't 
pass a budget. You can pass a budget with just 50 votes. It was given 
priority. We know we need a budget. So we set up a Budget Act that 
allows even a bare majority of Senators to pass a budget, and set a 
plan for our Congress.
  The Senate has not even allowed the Budget Committee to meet this 
year to

[[Page 9872]]

mark up a budget resolution. The Budget Act calls for the Budget 
Committee to hold a markup by April 1. It calls for the Congress to 
pass a budget by April 15. The House passed their budget by April 15. 
We have not yet even had a markup to work on a budget resolution, and 
the leadership in the Senate has refused to pass a budget since April 
29, 2009, 785 days ago. We wonder why this country is in a financial 
crisis when we will not even get together to pass a budget, as every 
city, county, and State has. I don't know of a single one that hasn't.
  Over this time that we haven't passed a budget, the Nation has spent 
$7.1 trillion and added $3.2 trillion to the gross Federal debt.
  The majority leader, my friend, Harry Reid--I know he has a tough 
job, but he made a big mistake. He recently said it would be foolish 
for the Democrats to produce a budget.
  Foolish to produce a budget? Is this the kind of leadership the 
American people expect out of Washington, that the No. 1 Senator, the 
leader of the majority party, who has the power to control the flow of 
legislation in this body, says he is not about to produce a budget? 
Indeed, he says it is foolish to produce one, and he has basically sent 
word to the Budget Committee we are not to even have committee 
hearings.
  I think nothing could be more foolish than refusing to provide the 
Nation's job creators, investors, and taxpayers with a solid blueprint 
for our fiscal future. A blueprint in which the American people can see 
we have gotten it, we understand the debt course we are on is 
unsustainable, and now we have a plan to get us on the right track.
  Why wouldn't the people who wanted to be in the majority, who asked 
to lead, step forward and lead? Why will they not lay forth a plan that 
can be analyzed and shown to the American people? Why aren't they proud 
to present their vision for what America should be like and how we 
should handle their future?
  I will say in conclusion that the breakdown of the talks does not 
surprise me. The Gang of Six tried. Those talks seem to have fallen 
apart. Then we went to the Biden talks. Once again, people said that we 
were about to reach an agreement any minute, that all the rest of us 
Senators could relax and all we needed to do is walk up and sign our 
name to what these wise few have decided our financial future should be 
like.
  I think most of us realize we were elected. We are Senators. We are 
not rubberstamps for Vice President Biden and some of our fine 
colleagues. The Presiding Officer is an independent American citizen. 
He is going to make up his own mind. So am I. But when you are talking 
about a budget, a financial plan, a program to raise the debt ceiling 
in this Congress, we ought to read it, we ought to know what is in it. 
Not only us, the American people should know what is in it. They need 
to have time to absorb what it means for them and their future, that 
there will be no gimmicks or tricks, and it will be honestly presented. 
That takes some time.
  I am worried and have been worried if they reach an agreement, even 
if it is a somewhat good agreement--I don't expect it to be a great 
one, but if a decent agreement is made, it is going to be brought 
forward and we will have to pass it within days because of a panic that 
we will have an economic problem if we do not raise the debt limit and 
we cannot spend so much money. I don't think we should head that way.
  I don't know what is going to happen now. It is late, I will 
acknowledge, for us to go back to the regular order and have Budget 
Committee hearings and amendments in the Budget Committee and have 
people stand up before the world and explain their view and offer 
amendments. I don't think it is necessarily too late. I do not know 
where it will go. But this has not been a shining hour for the Senate, 
and after this last election in which Senators and House Members took a 
shellacking by the American people, who were very unhappy with us, the 
House I think appears to at least have gotten the message. They put 
forth an honest budget that changes the debt trajectory and they put it 
forth and explained it and defended it.
  What do we have in the Senate? We have the majority leader saying it 
is foolish for us to produce a budget. We are not going to produce a 
budget. Did he mean it is foolish for America? No, he meant it is 
foolish for political reasons. He meant it was foolish for us as 
Democrats to step forward and lay out an honest plan because, wow, that 
plan may include tax increases. It might include spending reductions. 
It may not reduce the deficit very much, and we would have to defend 
that to the American people and we might not be able to defend it and 
people might be unhappy with us, as they were in the last election. So 
let's be clever, let's not produce a budget, let's let Mr. Ryan and the 
House lead with their chin, let them come out and make a plan and we 
will attack it. That is the Democratic leadership we have seen in this 
Senate.
  It is not legitimate, it is not justified leadership. It is 
irresponsible and the President has not been engaged. He does not want 
to talk about it. He has not explained it in his State of the Union 
Address. He has not talked to the American people consistently about 
why his own debt commission chairman, Mr. Erskine Bowles, says we are 
facing the most predictable economic crisis in our history. No, he 
doesn't want to talk about that. Why? Because once you talk about it, 
it becomes obvious that spending needs to be cut and because it is 
obvious that you cannot fix your way out of this by raising taxes. If 
you are a tax and spender, you don't want to deal with that reality, in 
my view.
  I am worried about it. I don't know where we are heading today. 
Senator Reid is a good man. Senator McConnell is a good leader on our 
side. I don't know what Speaker Boehner is going to do, what Vice 
President Biden will do. But the time, as old Snuffy Smith, the 
mountaineer, used to say, ``Time's a-wastin'.'' The deadline is coming 
closer and closer. We are going to have to figure out something to help 
secure the future of this country and I hope we can do it sooner rather 
than later.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendments Nos. 502 and 503

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Paul, I call up 
amendments Nos. 502 and 503, and ask unanimous consent that they be 
reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for Mr. Paul, 
     proposes amendments en bloc numbered 502 and 503.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 502

  (Purpose: To strike the provision relating to the Treasurer of the 
                             United States)

       On page 55, strike lines 12 through 22.


                           Amendment No. 503

(Purpose: To strike the provision relating to the Director of the Mint)

       On page 55, line 23, strike all through page 56, line 5.


                            VOTE EXPLANATION

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today, I was unavoidably absent for votes 
No. 95 and No. 96. At the time of the votes, I was attending a memorial 
service at Fort Riley, KS, for six soldiers of the 2nd Brigade, 1st 
Infantry Division. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the 
Vitter amendment No. 499 and the DeMint amendment No. 510 to S. 679.
  Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in 
support of the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act 
of 2011. This is a good, commonsense piece of legislation that has 
bipartisan support.
  When President Kennedy came to office, he had 286 positions to fill 
with

[[Page 9873]]

the titles of Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Assistant 
Secretary, and Administrator. By the end of the Clinton administration, 
there were 914 positions with these titles.
  Today, there are more than 1,200 positions appointed by the President 
that require the advice and consent of the Senate.
  The large number of positions requiring confirmation causes long 
delays in selecting, vetting, and nominating these appointees.
  I strongly believe the confirmation process must be thorough enough 
for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty, but it should not be 
so onerous as to deter qualified people from public service.
  The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act removes 
the need for Senate confirmation for only 205 positions by converting 
these positions to Presidential appointment-only. They include 
positions involved with internal agency management and positions that 
are already accountable to other Senate-confirmed positions, such as 
internal management and administrative positions and deputies or 
nonpolicy-related Assistant Secretaries who report to individuals who 
are Senate-confirmed.
  Some have argued that, through this bill, the Senate cedes some of 
its constitutional power to the executive branch. However, this bill 
actually represents an exercise of the Senate's constitutional 
prerogatives.
  The Constitution gives Congress the authority to decide whether a 
particular position should be categorized as an inferior officer that 
need not go through the Senate confirmation process.
  The Senate has a number of important responsibilities that it must 
undertake, and it is questionable whether spending time confirming, for 
instance, the Alternate Federal Cochairman, Appalachian Regional 
Commission, is the most appropriate use of our limited time and 
resources. Prioritizing our work for the American people, by 
eliminating some Senate-confirmed positions, does not diminish the 
Senate's authority.

                          ____________________