[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12137-12148]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL 
                        BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 276, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of Robert S. Mueller, III, of 
California, to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a 
term expiring September 4, 2013.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, before I begin, unless all time is yielded 
back, we have 2 hours on this debate. I ask unanimous consent that any 
quorum calls during that 2 hours be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider the 
President's nomination of Robert Mueller to continue serving as the 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This is consistent 
with the President's May 12, 2011 request that Congress pass 
legislation to enable the Director to continue serving, in light of the 
leadership transitions at several key national security agencies.
  Prior to the President's request, I had discussed this with President 
Obama, and one of the things he noted was that we were going to have a 
new Secretary of Defense, a new Director of the CIA, and that he did 
not want to have yet a third key member of the national security team 
be replaced at this time. I applaud the President for this, as he could 
have taken another route and named somebody who would serve for 10 
years, beyond any time the President might be in office. Instead, the 
President decided to do what is best for the country and extend 
Director Mueller for 2 years. With the tenth anniversary of 9/11 
approaching and the continued threat from al-Qaida, we find ourselves 
facing unique circumstances. We need leadership, stability, and 
continuity at the FBI as the President makes necessary shifts to his 
national security team.
  After I met with the President and heard his request, I immediately 
went to work with a bipartisan group of Senators to draft and introduce 
a bill to create a one-time exception to the statute that limits the 
term of the FBI Director to 10 years. I worked in a bipartisan manner 
to hold a hearing and report the legislation to the full Senate on June 
16, 2011. We worked in such a way it could not be seen as a Democratic 
or Republican bill but as bipartisan. Unfortunately, it then took a 
month to get consent from the other side to consider the bill. Once we 
obtained consent, the Senate was able to pass a version of it on July 
21. The House of Representatives, to their credit, followed suit on 
July 25 and the President signed the bill into law yesterday.
  The President's nomination of Director Mueller shows there was never 
any effort to impose a legislative appointment upon the President. The 
request to extend Director Mueller's term originated with the 
President, not Congress. Nor was it Director Mueller's idea. The 
President has prevailed upon Director Mueller and his family, for the 
good of the country, to alter their plans for Director Mueller to leave 
the FBI. Instead, both Director Mueller and Mrs. Mueller have answered 
the call of the country. Incidentally, I don't think I am disclosing 
anything inappropriate by saying that in my discussions with the 
President, when he was talking about extending the term of Director 
Mueller, I asked him: How does Director Mueller feel about this? The 
President said: I haven't talked with him yet, but he is a good, loyal 
American, a good Marine, and he will answer the call. And that is 
precisely what he did.
  When we passed our legislation, I did insist we include a unanimous 
consent agreement to expedite consideration of this nomination when 
others insisted we adopt a form of statute that would require Director 
Mueller's renomination. The Majority Leader now has consent to take up 
the nomination, and after the use or yielding back of time for debate, 
the Senate will vote on the nomination. Some asked why I insisted upon 
such a unanimous consent agreement. I did it to prevent a recurrence of 
the delays and obstruction that have been used to complicate 
consideration of so many of the President's nominations, especially in 
the area of national security, such as the Deputy Attorney General, the 
Assistant Attorney General for National Security, and so many others.
  We have Senators who speak on the floor about the importance of 
protecting the security of the United States, but then at the same time 
delay and delay the people the President needs in place to protect our 
national security. The irony is that after these nominees have been 
held up month after month, they pass overwhelmingly in this body. In 
fact, there was even a hold originally on the legislation making 
Director Mueller's nomination possible. But now that is behind us and 
the Senate can vote to reconfirm Director Mueller to a new 2-year term 
before the August 2 deadline and avoid any lapse in leadership at the 
FBI.
  Let me speak a little about the Director. He took over as FBI 
Director just days before the attacks of September 11, 2001. Since 
then, he has overseen and guided the Bureau through a major 
transformation and evolution. Of course, as in any major 
transformation, there have been problems, but the Director has 
consistently displayed professionalism and focus in increasing the 
FBI's national security and counterterrorism efforts, while still 
carrying out the Bureau's essential law enforcement responsibilities. 
So I applaud Director Mueller's commitment to ensuring that the FBI 
adheres to the values and freedoms Americans hold dear, while 
vigorously pursuing important law enforcement national security 
objectives.
  As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I intend to continue to 
conduct vigorous oversight of the FBI, and will work closely with the 
Director on these important issues. After all, oversight is one of 
Congress's most important responsibilities. For example, on June 17, I 
wrote a letter with Ranking Member Grassley to Director Mueller about 
the proposed changes in the FBI's revised edition of the Domestic 
Investigations and Operations Guide. I remain committed to ensuring 
that this revised guide provides the FBI with the latitude it needs to 
carry out its duties while not infringing upon the civil liberties of 
Americans, and ensuring the Judiciary Committee and public are kept 
informed from its implementation.
  I will continue to monitor the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act, 
which Congress extended this past May. At the start of this Congress, I 
introduced legislation that would have extended the three expiring 
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, while improving oversight, promoting 
transparency, and expanding privacy and civil liberties safeguards in 
current law. Unfortunately, despite the fact that legislation was 
reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, it was never allowed to 
receive an up-or-down vote during the debate to extend the expiring 
provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act earlier this year. Nonetheless, I 
will work with Director Mueller, the Department of Justice, and all 
Senators of both parties to ensure oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act 
authorities.
  It is important that we vote for this renomination this afternoon, 
given the ongoing threats to our Nation, and I appreciate Director 
Mueller's willingness to continue his service. At the Judiciary 
Committee hearing on the legislation allowing for this extension, while 
I noted that Director Mueller has dedicated his life to public service, 
I also made a point to mention his wife, Ann. All of us who serve in 
public office know that it puts extra strain on our family members. I 
know how much

[[Page 12138]]

of a partner she has been with him in bringing him to where he is, and 
I know it has to have been a large part of their life together. I am 
certain that they both were hoping to be able to have some time without 
the pressures of being in such demanding public service. So I thank him 
for being willing to serve, but I thank Mrs. Mueller, too. So often we 
forget that. Director Mueller has dedicated his life to public service, 
and we are grateful to him and his family for their continued 
sacrifice.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished ranking member on the floor, 
so I yield the floor to Senator Grassley. And I note for the Senator 
from Iowa that I have already asked consent that when there is a quorum 
call, the time be divided equally.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to support the 
renomination of Robert Mueller to be Director of the FBI.
  Director Mueller has served as Director since days immediately 
preceding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the wake of 
that tragedy, he has overseen a top-to-bottom transformation of the FBI 
from a domestic law enforcement agency to a national security agency 
and with a necessary global presence to combat terrorism.
  Director Mueller has led the charge to ensure that the FBI's 
transformation is successful. This includes upgrading the workforce 
from an agent-driven agency to one that includes an ever-increasing 
number of intelligence analysts. I applaud the hard work that has been 
done, and I also applaud the leadership of Director Mueller. But more 
work remains.
  Despite the recent successes, the FBI also has its share of black 
marks and skeletons in the closet. I have been an outspoken critic of 
the FBI's culture for many years because of its unwillingness to own up 
to mistakes. Too often, officials sought to protect the agency's 
reputation at the expense of the truth. My concerns are magnified by 
the way the FBI has treated internal whistleblowers who come forward 
and report fraud and abuse. But these problems are not necessarily the 
fault of Director Mueller, and many of these problems were in place 
long before he arrived.
  The Director has been forthright in coming before Congress and 
explaining these mistakes and not simply passing the buck. I appreciate 
his candor, and I believe the FBI is in good hands with his leadership. 
But I will continue, as he knows, to conduct extensive oversight of the 
FBI to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent appropriately and that 
the civil liberties of Americans are protected.
  In 1976, following the excesses of J. Edgar Hoover, Congress limited 
the term of the Director of the FBI to one nonrenewable 10-year term. 
Congress did so to prevent the accumulation of excess power by a 
Director as well as to provide some political independence for the FBI.
  Despite his knowing about Director Mueller's impending term limit and 
his initiating a search for a successor led by Attorney General and 
Vice President Biden, President Obama chose not to send the Senate a 
nomination for the Director of the FBI. Instead, the President decided, 
notwithstanding those statutory provisions, Director Mueller should 
continue to serve in this position for another 2 years.
  Presidential decisions to make transitions in other national security 
positions are not a special circumstance supporting the extension of 
the Director's term. Those personnel changes were entirely within the 
control of the President. However, we do live in extraordinary times 
and currently face unusual national security threats. Between the 
recent death of Osama bin Laden and with the upcoming 10th anniversary 
of the 9/11 attacks, there is an increased threat of a possible 
terrorist attack. Against this backdrop and with a heavy heart, I 
agreed to support the President's request to provide a one-time 
exception to the 10-year term limit on the FBI directorship.
  With some reluctance, I joined as a cosponsor of the original S. 
1103. The President recently signed into law a modified version of that 
bill that provides a one-time extension of the FBI Director's term. 
Early in the process, I said that as a requirement for my support of 
any legislation extending the 10-year term, regular procedure be 
followed. The purpose of this requirement was to set a substantial 
precedent against pursuing a simple process eviscerating the 10-year 
term limit.
  The process of getting to today's confirmation vote has met my early 
requirement. A precedent has been set that the FBI Director's term 
would not be routinely extended--the process of holding a hearing where 
the FBI Director testified, a legislative markup, and a floor vote in 
both the House and Senate. Further, the bill was coupled with a 
unanimous consent agreement requiring a vote on the renomination of 
Director Mueller. Taken together, this process has established a 
historical record that we do not take this extension lightly and that 
any future extensions should have to go through no less than this same 
process.
  The 10-year limit has achieved its intended purpose. Until Director 
Mueller, no Director subject to the limit has served the full 10-year 
term. The limit has been successful in reducing the power of the 
Director and in preserving the vital civil liberties of all Americans.
  It has also provided important political independence for the FBI 
Director. Only one Director has been fired in this period, and this did 
not occur for political reasons. The prohibition on reappointment has 
also preserved the Directors's independence by eliminating any 
potential that the Director will attempt to curry favor with the 
Presidents to be reappointed.
  Director Mueller has done an admirable job on some areas of reform in 
an agency under difficult circumstances. I strongly support Director 
Mueller and believe he will continue to provide steady leadership at 
this agency during what continue to be extraordinary times, and you can 
say extraordinary times going back to at least September 11, 2001, but 
as you look on the history of the war on terror, it probably started 25 
years before that in one form or another. However, it is clear to me, 
as the legislation the President signed requires, that in 2 years 
Director Mueller will need to move on and the President will send the 
Senate a new nominee to fill his shoes.
  In the meantime, we all ought to thank Director Mueller for his 
willingness to serve for another 2 years in this very important 
position because I am sure he was already ready to move on. So the 
people of the United States as well as this Congress need to say thank 
you, Director Mueller, for being willing to serve your people again.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I support the President's nomination of 
Robert Mueller to be the Director of the FBI for an additional 2-year 
term.
  I believe Mr. Mueller is a fine Director of the FBI. I had the 
opportunity to observe him within the Department of Justice for a 
number of years. I served as U.S. attorney in Alabama for 12 years, and 
during that time he was the U.S. attorney. He was an attorney in the 
Department of Justice, and he was one of the top administrators of the 
Department of Justice. Director Mueller was a decorated Marine officer 
and served in Vietnam. I truly believe he represents the highest and 
best ideals of American patriotism and capability.
  He had the opportunity over the years to go into private practice and 
make a lot of money. He has stayed and committed himself to public 
service according to the highest ideals, I believe, of public service.
  He had a 10-year term. Normally, we would expect that it would be 
just

[[Page 12139]]

that, a 10-year term. The Director has given that long a period of time 
because there was a concern that when people stay too long, problems 
can arise in the system because it becomes personality driven rather 
than meritocracy and people can become entrenched in that sort of 
thing. So we have a 10-year term. I am not sure that is a perfect 
period of time, but that was the one that was decided, so it should not 
be lightly changed to a longer period of time without some serious 
thought.
  Are we violating the very purposes of the act that limited his term? 
I am pleased that, instead of moving forward with the proposal as 
originally drafted, we are now moving forward with the proposal Senator 
Coburn offered, his substitute amendment. I think that is the better 
way to extend the term. I would like to talk about that a little bit.
  The original proposal would have just amended the statute providing 
that the Director serve for only one 10-year term and created an 
exception to allow Director Mueller to serve an additional 2 years. I 
am concerned about the potential for creating a dangerous precedent 
that the 10-year term limit applies depending on who is the Director, 
his or her political popularity, and the political dynamics of the 
White House and the Congress. That was not our goal.
  I do understand the President's desire to retain Director Mueller 
during this time in our Nation's history and to do so expeditiously and 
not to have some sort of interim uncertainty. Actually, I congratulate 
the President on his judgment in concluding that Director Mueller can 
do a good job and has done a good job. While it is true that the 
original legislative proposal would have accomplished those things, I 
believe it was the easy way out and would not only have been a 
temptation to future generations to replicate it, but, more important, 
it might have run afoul of the Constitution.
  At the hearing before the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a 
member, concerns were raised about the original proposal. Those were 
raised by University of Virginia James Madison Distinguished Professor 
of Law John Harrison.
  As we all recall, James Madison was considered to be the Founder of 
our Constitution, the most active member of our Constitutional 
Convention, the one whose notes told us what went on, the one who went 
to the convention with an outline, a framework for the structure of 
government that eventually became our Constitution.
  Mr. Harrison testified that it was an unconstitutional ``attempt by 
Congress to exercise directly through legislation the appointments 
power.''
  Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the appointments 
clause--it is in the Constitution--states that the President ``shall 
nominate and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall 
appoint Ambassadors and other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of 
the Supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States, whose 
appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be 
established by law.''
  In the case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held that ``any 
appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the 
United States is an `Officer of the United States' and must, therefore, 
be appointed in the manner prescribed by [section] 2, [clause] 2, of 
that Article.''
  In addition, the Supreme Court has long recognized that ``the power 
of removal [is] incident to the power of appointment.'' Therefore, 
Congress may not involve itself in the removal process insofar as it 
interferes with the ability of the President to exercise Executive 
power and to perform his constitutional duty.
  Professor Harrison explained that because ``an appointment is a legal 
act that causes someone to hold an office that otherwise would be 
vacant or held by someone else,'' a ``statutory extension of the term 
of an incumbent causes the current incumbent to hold an office that 
otherwise would have been vacant upon the expiration of the incumbent's 
term. It is thus a statutory appointment.''
  Professor Harrison further testified that the original proposal would 
have also run afoul of the fundamental constitutional principle that 
underlies the appointments clause. This is a fundamental principle 
because the President has the ultimate veto--the power to decide 
whether to appoint someone at all--and he has the absolute 
responsibility for their nomination, good or bad. He nominates them.
  Indeed, the rationale for the structure of the appointments clause 
dates back to Federalist No. 76 in which Alexander Hamilton explained:

       The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will 
     naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact 
     regard to reputation. He will on this account feel himself 
     under stronger obligation and more interested to investigate 
     with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be 
     filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may 
     have the fairest pretensions to them.

  That is pretty effective language.
  Dilution of the President's sole responsibility for nomination and 
appointment is inconsistent with constitutional principles.
  Given that constitutional concerns were raised by these scholars, it 
was at least arguable that had we proceeded with the original proposal, 
a judge could find Director Mueller's appointment and term of service 
to be unconstitutional if it were to be challenged by someone in court, 
and that was possible.
  Particularly concerning was the suggestion that in a properly 
presented case involving an individual subject to a purported exercise 
of government power by the Director who was appointed pursuant to a 
statute such as the original proposal, a court could find that exercise 
of power to be invalid, either prospectively or retrospectively. In the 
past, courts have enforced the appointments clause by holding invalid 
the actions of purported officers whose appointments did not comport 
with the Constitution.
  When questioned about this possibility at the hearing, both Director 
Mueller and former Deputy Attorney General of the United States James 
Comey agreed that if serious constitutional concerns could be raised, 
they would favor proceeding with the reappointment process in a 
different way, one that would pass constitutional muster and not raise 
questions.
  Professor Harrison advises an alternative constitutional method, 
which is the proposal Congress passed and the President signed into law 
yesterday. He gave us a suggested way to proceed that would be 
constitutional, and we drafted it, agreed with it, and passed it.
  I think it speaks pretty well of Congress that we are attuned to the 
complexities of the Constitution and are committed to being faithful to 
that document, not just taking convenience and going faster but taking 
the time to hear professors, to think it out, because in that way we 
respect the Constitution, we venerate it, we strengthen it. When we 
just bypass it or slide by, dismiss lightly concerns that actions of 
Congress or the President may be in violation of the Constitution and 
don't give due weight to that, we disrespect the document.
  This law creates a new 2-year term that would run until September 4, 
2013. It assumed that President Obama would nominate Director Mueller 
to that new term with the advice and consent of the Senate, requiring 
the confirmation vote we will proceed to shortly. Under the new law, 
Director Mueller is not eligible for another term after September 4, 
2013, and after the expiration of that new term, the term for the 
Director of the FBI will revert to the previous law, the 10-year term; 
therefore, whoever is the President in 2013 can appoint a new Director 
to a 10-year term.
  While I agree Congress should work to expedite the confirmation 
process in this unique situation, I also saw no reason to proceed in a 
constitutionally unsound manner. The formalities of the Constitution 
may sometimes create obstacles to getting things done as quickly as 
some would like, but the Constitution and its formalities exist for a 
very important reason; that is, our constitutional tradition of the 
adherence to the rule of law. We cannot circumvent those formalities in 
the interest of some expediency or because it

[[Page 12140]]

is a convenient means to a desired end. The words of the Constitution 
have meaning. They are not suggestions that we are free to ignore if it 
is inconvenient today.
  I believe in the process by which we are now proceeding--creating a 
separate 2-year term and then calling on the President to make a new 
nomination. He didn't have to renominate Director Mueller, but he 
indicated that was his desire, and we have accorded him the opportunity 
to do that. He has renominated Director Mueller, and I hope in a few 
moments we will confirm him to this important position.
  One of the discussions we had at that hearing was with Professor Van 
Alstyne. I heard him make a speech many years ago--I was a U.S. 
attorney, so it must have been 15, 20 years ago--at the Eleventh 
Circuit Conference, I think, in Georgia. He spoke to the judges. He 
said he had come to the belief that if one really respected the 
Constitution, they would follow it faithfully, the good and the bad 
parts, because that was the only way you respected the Constitution, 
that was the way to honor the Constitution. That is the way to respect 
it, to follow what it says.
  To the extent to which we are tempted to move around the plain words, 
the plain intent of the Constitution for convenience, we weaken that 
document. In the long run, a weakened document will be less of a 
bulwark protecting our liberties and our freedom as individual 
Americans.
  I thank the President, I thank the leadership, and I thank Senator 
Leahy, the chairman of our committee, for responding to the professor's 
request and ideas and proceeding in a way that I think raises no 
question about constitutionality--or if it does, it is small--and in a 
way that took a little more effort.
  I once again express my deep admiration for Director Mueller. He is a 
thoroughly professional law enforcement officer. For virtually the 
entire time of his law enforcement career, he has tried individual 
cases, prosecuted individual defendants for all kinds of crimes and 
depredations. He has understood the reality of courtroom experience. He 
has worked as a prosecutor with the FBI investigative agents over his 
entire career as a law enforcement officer, and now, as the Director of 
the FBI, he brings a unique experience to it. I believe he has done a 
fine job, and I believe he will continue to do a fine job for the 
people of the United States.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of FBI 
Director Robert Mueller continuing in his current position for another 
2 years. He valiantly served our country in the Marine Corps, earning 
various commendations including the Purple Heart. He also served our 
country in a variety of other important positions including as a 
Federal prosecutor, as the head of the of the criminal division at the 
Department of Justice, and as Acting Deputy Attorney General. He is the 
second-longest serving director in the FBI's history.
  Robert was sworn in as the FBI Director exactly 1 week before the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He inherited an agency ill-
equipped at that time for detecting the emerging threats posed by 
terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida. Change does not come easily 
to Federal Government agencies, but Director Mueller immediately 
committed to Congress that he would alter the status quo that dominated 
and redefined the culture of the Bureau to effectively address the new 
emerging threats facing our Nation.
  As Congress began looking at providing the FBI with badly needed 
terror investigation tools such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act, Director Muller was a prominent and 
critical part of the process. In the 10 years since that terrible 
attack on our Nation, the agency that Director Mueller leads has 
detected numerous plots aimed at attacking Americans both at home and 
abroad. At the same time, the FBI still carries out its function as the 
Nation's leading criminal investigative agency at the Department of 
Justice.
  Robert Mueller had a baptism by fire in those first days and weeks of 
his tenure. His leadership, character, and poise have remained constant 
and the net result has been a revamped FBI that is smarter, more 
nimble, and better equipped to meet the continuing threat of terrorism 
that America faces every day.
  I not only support this opportunity for Director Mueller to serve for 
another 2 years, but I am very pleased that we achieved this end 
through a constitutional means. The initial legislation would have 
simply extended Director Mueller's statutory term without a new 
nomination and confirmation. That would have amounted to an appointment 
by the Senate. The Constitution, however, gives the appointment power 
to the President. We must not use unconstitutional means to achieve 
even desirable political ends.
  I applaud the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, who offered the 
alternative of creating a single separate 2-year term that would be 
available only to Director Mueller. That approach leaves in place the 
statutory 10-year term for the position of FBI Director and respects 
the constitutional process of nomination and confirmation. It is 
indisputably constitutional. We have all taken the same oath to support 
and defend the Constitution, and that at least means we should choose a 
path that is constitutionally firm over a path that is constitutionally 
shaky. We did in this case, and I think it is a win-win. It achieves a 
good purpose through a constitutional process.
  So I am proud to vote once again to support Robert Mueller's 
nomination to be FBI Director. He is a great public servant and the 
right leader for these challenging times.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to support wholeheartedly 
the nomination of Robert S. Mueller III to continue serving as the 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, for an additional 
2 years.
  I have three criteria for nominees: (1) competence; (2) commitment to 
mission of the agency; and (3) highest integrity. Director Mueller 
surpasses all those tests with flying colors.
  His competence cannot be questioned. Director Mueller came to the FBI 
just a week before the 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2001. Since then, he 
has provided steadfast leadership as the FBI has transformed from a 
traditional domestic law enforcement agency into a global 
counterterrorism and anticrime police force that has successfully kept 
Americans safe from terrorist attacks here at home and abroad. Prior to 
the FBI, he served our Nation as a decorated marine in Vietnam, and as 
a Federal prosecutor who tackled cases ranging from the bombing of Pan 
Am flight 103 to the prosecution of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega.
  He has shown unwavering commitment to the FBI's mission. Director 
Mueller is the only FBI Director to serve out a full 10-year term. From 
his first day on the job, he fought to make sure the hardworking men 
and women at the FBI have the tools they need to carry out their 
extraordinary responsibilities. As chairwoman of the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the FBI and as a member of the 
Intelligence Committee, I am proud to call Director Mueller my 
steadfast partner in that fight. Together, we work to provide the FBI 
with the capabilities to stop terrorists before they attack us here at 
home, go after schemers and scammers who prey on hardworking American 
families, prevent cyberterrorists from devastating our technology 
infrastructure, and catch sexual predators before they harm our 
children. I look forward to continuing our strong partnership for the 
next 2 years.
  Lastly, Director Mueller has strong integrity. He speaks truth to 
power, even when the truth is unpopular or inconvenient. He answered 
the call to service when President Bush asked him to serve as FBI 
director in 2001. And he has answered the call of President Obama when 
asked to serve 2 more years.
  We live in extraordinarily critical times, facing threats from both 
within

[[Page 12141]]

and outside our Nation, and the President's national security team has 
experienced major leadership changes in recent months. Keeping Director 
Mueller at the FBI for another 2 years means that one of the tested 
``Nighthawks'' will continue guarding our Nation's national security. 
The broad bipartisan support in the Senate to have him continue serving 
as Director is a testament to the faith we place in this proven leader. 
We are privileged to have such a committed and dedicated public servant 
leading the FBI, and I am proud to support his nomination.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of 
the nomination of Robert Mueller to continue as the Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation for an additional 2 years.
  In his 10 years at the FBI, Director Mueller has served admirably, 
instituting important reforms at the Bureau and strengthening its 
counterterrorism capabilities. An extension of his term will insure 
that those efforts can continue and provide important stability to the 
President's national security team during this challenging time.
  It is not surprising that when searching for a replacement for 
Director Mueller, the President determined that it would be best if the 
Director would continue his service. Director Mueller has a long and 
distinguished career in public service and we are fortunate that he has 
agreed to continue in his position.
  I know that my colleagues are generally familiar with Mr. Mueller's 
background, but I think this is an appropriate time to review his many 
accomplishments.
  Director Mueller first began his service to our Nation when he joined 
the U.S. Marine Corps after graduating from Princeton University. He 
served as an officer for 3 years, leading a rifle platoon of the Third 
Marine Division in Vietnam. He received the Bronze Star, two Navy 
Commendation medals, the Purple Heart, and the Vietnamese Cross of 
Gallantry.
  After receiving his law degree from the University of Virginia Law 
School, Mr. Mueller headed to my home State of California to begin his 
legal career. He worked in San Francisco as a litigator until 1976, 
when he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of 
California. Eventually, he would become the chief of the criminal 
division in that office.
  In 1982, he moved to Boston to serve as an assistant U.S. attorney. 
He investigated and prosecuted major financial fraud, terrorism, and 
public corruption cases.
  After serving in several positions in the public and private sectors, 
in 1998 Mr. Mueller was named U.S. attorney in San Francisco. That was 
when he first came to my attention as a skilled and committed 
prosecutor.
  Mr. Mueller continued in that role until he was nominated to be FBI 
Director by President George W. Bush on July 5, 2001. That was an 
extremely challenging and difficult time to take on this 
responsibility, as he came to office only a few months before the 
terrorist attack on September 11, 2001.
  Director Mueller more than rose to the occasion. He provided strong 
and steady leadership, and worked to transform the Bureau into an 
agency that can better detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the 
United States.
  Under Director Mueller's direction, the FBI has played an essential 
role in more than 20 significant counterterrorism operations, while 
infiltrating and arresting groups of individuals charged with planning 
attacks against our country.
  The FBI has also built its cyber investigation capability, focused on 
counterintelligence, investigated public corruption cases, and tracked 
and disrupted gang activity.
  Time and again, Director Mueller has met the many challenges facing 
the Bureau, and it is now one of our most respected government 
institutions.
  Of course, Congress had good reasons for placing a term limit on the 
Director of the FBI. History has shown that the enormous power wielded 
by the Director and the FBI can be subject to abuse in the wrong hands.
  Congress has recognized those concerns with regard to the extension 
of Director Mueller's term. With the implementing legislation that has 
passed Congress, and this subsequent nomination, Congress and the 
President have created a one-time extension that would only apply to 
Director Mueller. Future FBI Directors would still be limited to a 10-
year term.
  Extending Director Mueller's term at the FBI for an additional 2 
years will ensure that the important reforms and progress he has made 
will continue. Additionally, it will provide important stability to the 
President's national security team during this sensitive and 
challenging time and while it is otherwise going through important 
leadership changes.
  This summer Leon Panetta has succeeded Robert Gates as Secretary of 
Defense. Although General David Petraeus has been confirmed to be the 
next Director of the CIA, he will not arrive at Headquarters in Langley 
to take leadership of the Agency until after Labor Day.
  There are additional changes in key military leadership positions, as 
well as at the National Counterterrorism Center.
  In the midst of these changes, Director Mueller will be an 
experienced, steady hand among the President's national security 
advisors. Keeping Director Mueller in his position will provide 
important continuity and leadership during this transition.
  Personally, I have deep admiration and respect for Director Mueller. 
His integrity, courage, and dedication are an inspiration, and his 
leadership and effectiveness serve as an example for all. I am very 
pleased to call him my friend, and thank him for his willingness to 
continue to serve for another 2 years.
  I urge my colleagues to support his confirmation.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Budget cut Impact

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, we are clearly at a momentous moment in 
American history. We are getting tens of thousands of people visiting 
our Web site, sanders.senate.gov, every day. People want to know what 
is going on. As the longest serving Independent in history in Congress, 
let me give my view of where we are right now.
  First, I do wish to say I get a little bit tired of hearing some of 
our pundits and some of the politicians around here blithely talking 
about trillions of dollars in cuts. I see some of these guys making 
huge salaries on TV saying: Why don't they just come to an agreement--
$2 trillion in cuts, $3 trillion in cuts. That may be OK if one is 
making a whole lot of money on television doing a television show, but, 
clearly, those people have not been talking to real Americans.
  Let me go over what the media and many of us in Congress have not 
been talking about, and that is what the impacts of these trillions of 
dollars of cuts are about. These are not just words on a piece of 
paper. These are cuts which are going to have devastating impacts on 
people who are already suffering as a result of the worst recession 
since the Great Depression. Some people come up with this great idea 
and they say: The cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security is too 
high today, seniors and disabled vets are getting too much, and ``noted 
economists''--I have not heard from these noted economists--think it is 
too extravagant.
  Mr. President, go back to Baltimore and I will go to Vermont and we 
will ask seniors whether they think the COLAs they are getting now are 
too extravagant, given the fact they haven't gotten a COLA in the last 
2 years. Studies I have seen say not only are the COLAs today not too 
extravagant for Social Security and disabled vets, they are, in fact, 
too low because they underestimate the real expenses of seniors, which 
largely have to do with

[[Page 12142]]

health care and prescription drugs. The costs are soaring. Any of these 
pundits or any of these economists who go out and talk to real people 
and say Social Security COLAs are too high are going to get laughed 
right out of the room because it isn't true.
  If we come forward with this so-called chained CPI, this new 
formulation for COLAs, this is what it will mean in the real world: If 
someone is 65 today, when they become 75 in 10 years, that will result 
in a $560 decline in what they otherwise would have gotten in Social 
Security benefits, and when they are 85, 20 years from today, that will 
be a $1,000-a-year decline. I know in DC, with the lobbyists making 
millions a year, when we talk about $1,000, that is what these guys 
spend on a fancy dinner. It is laughable. They don't know what goes on 
in the real world.
  There are millions of seniors today hanging on, trying to pay their 
prescription drug costs, trying to pay their out-of-pocket costs for 
health care, and $1,000 a year in 20 years is a lot of money for those 
people. In my view, it would be immoral and unacceptable to do what a 
number of plans out here are talking about; that is, to cut Social 
Security benefits very significantly. Clearly, that is where the 
Republicans are coming from, but it distresses me that I hear the 
President and Democrats in Congress also talking about that. This 
Senator will do everything he can to protect this enormously important 
program which, by the way, just in passing, has not contributed one 
nickel to the deficit because it is funded by the payroll tax and has a 
$2.6 trillion surplus. From a moral perspective, we cannot and must not 
cut Social Security.
  There are other geniuses out there who are saying: Well, the way 
Medicare health care costs are going up, maybe it is time we did 
something like make major cuts in Medicare, including raising the 
eligibility age from 65 to 67. What is the problem? What is 2 years? 
Clearly, those folks have not talked to anybody who has been struggling 
when they are 60 or 63 and looking forward to Medicare at 65. What 
happens if a person is a modest-income person and they are 66 years of 
age and they are dealing with a health care crisis? Maybe they were 
hospitalized, but the government has said, pundits have said, my 
Republican friends have said, we are going to raise the Medicare age to 
67. Tell me what happens. Let the American people tell me what happens 
to those millions of people? What are they supposed to do? They get 
diagnosed with cancer, they have a serious heart problem, they are 66, 
have no money in the bank, what happens to them? How many of those 
people will not survive?
  Then other people say: Well, Medicaid is an easy program to cut. I 
mean, let's be politically honest about Medicaid. Medicaid is for lower 
income people. They don't have lobbyists, they don't make large 
campaign contributions. Many low-income people don't vote. They are 
easy to go after. Let's cut hundreds of billions of dollars from 
Medicaid. Let's be clear. According to a recent study at Harvard 
University, some 45,000 Americans die each year unnecessarily because 
they don't get to a doctor on time. That is 45,000 Americans, 15 times 
what we lost in the disaster of 9/11. Every single year those people 
are dying.
  What happens if we make savage cuts in Medicaid? How many children do 
we throw off the Children's Health Insurance Program? What happens to 
the older people who are now in nursing homes on Medicaid? What happens 
to all those people? I guess we don't have to worry about them. Their 
lobbyists are not here. What happens to people on disability? We turn 
our back on those people, that is what we do.
  One of the very interesting aspects of this whole debate and why the 
American people are so angry, so frustrated, and so disillusioned is 
that Congress is moving in a direction of exactly the opposite way that 
the American people want us to handle deficit reduction. Every single 
poll I have seen and in my experience in talking to people in the State 
of Vermont, people want shared sacrifice. People understand that the 
wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well. Over a 
recent 25-year period, 80 percent of all new income went to the top 1 
percent. The rich are getting richer, and you know what. Their 
effective tax rates today are one of the lowest in American history, 
about 18 percent. So the richest people in America who are doing 
phenomenally well are paying a lower tax rate than nurses, teachers, 
and police officers. The American people who see the middle class 
declining and the rich getting richer are saying: Hey, it is only fair 
that the wealthiest people help us contribute to deficit reduction. We 
can't place the whole burden on the backs of people who are getting 
poorer and poorer as a result of the recession.
  The American people also understand we have large multinational 
corporations, such as General Electric, ExxonMobil, and many others 
that have been making billions of dollars in profits in recent years 
and don't pay a nickel in Federal taxes. Then, on top of that, we have 
the absurdity of a tax policy which allows the wealthy and large 
corporations to stash huge amounts of money in the Cayman Islands and 
in other tax havens so we are losing about $100 billion a year in 
revenue. The American people are looking around and saying: That is 
crazy. The wealthy and large corporations, which are doing phenomenally 
well, which are not paying their fair share of taxes, have to 
contribute to deficit reduction. It cannot simply be on the backs of 
the elderly, the children, the sick, the poor. That is what the 
American people are saying in poll after poll.
  There was a poll that just came out the other day--just one more of 
many polls. Washington Post: Should the wealthiest people in this 
country be asked to pay more? That is the question. They asked: In 
order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose the 
following: raising taxes on Americans with incomes of over $250,000 a 
year. The response in that poll was 72 percent of the American people 
said yes, 27 percent said no. Overwhelmingly, every poll we see says 
the wealthy have to pay more in taxes, and then the same polls say: 
Protect Social Security, protect Medicare, protect Medicaid, protect 
education. Here is the irony: We are marching down a path which will do 
exactly the opposite of what the American people want. Our Republican 
friends have been absolutely fanatically determined that no matter what 
happens, billionaires and large corporations will not pay a nickel more 
in taxes. That has been their religious belief, not a nickel more from 
the wealthiest people in this country. I have to say Democrats have not 
been particularly strong in opposition to that nor has the President 
been strong, with retreat after retreat.
  In recent months, we have heard more and more discussion from 
Democrats about cuts in Social Security, cuts in Medicare, cuts in 
Medicaid. Now there is apparently a willingness to come forward with a 
proposal that would include only cuts and no revenue at all--no revenue 
at all.
  I think the American people are angry. I think they are frustrated. I 
think they are disillusioned because what they want to see happen is 
deficit reduction done through shared sacrifice, although with the 
wealthy and large corporations playing their role appears not to be 
happening. And when they have said loudly and clearly that we must 
protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they are also seeing 
that it is not happening.
  So I just conclude by saying I think there is a path toward deficit 
reduction which is fair and responsible. It does ask the big-money 
interests to understand that they are Americans also and they have to 
play a role in deficit reduction. It does say that at a time when we 
have tripled military spending since 1997, we have to make significant 
cuts there as well.
  I hope our Republican friends give up their fanatical opposition to 
asking billionaires and millionaires and large corporations to play a 
role in deficit reduction. I hope my Democratic friends will stand 
tall. And I hope that at the end of the day, we have the deficit-
reduction program the American people will feel good about.
  With that, I yield the floor.

[[Page 12143]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          FAA Reauthorization

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we all know we are running against the 
deadline of Tuesday, August 2, on raising the debt of our Nation, and 
there is a real risk that if we don't make that deadline on Tuesday, 
there will be checks from the Federal Government that will not be able 
to go out. The number of 70 million is used as the number of checks 
written each month by the Federal Government that go to employees, that 
go to contractors, that go to recipients of certain benefits.
  Let me talk about 4,000 Federal workers who already have been 
furloughed. It doesn't have to do with raising the debt ceiling; it has 
to do with the failure of the House of Representatives to send a clean 
extension of the Federal Aviation Administration--the FAA 
reauthorization bill--for us to consider. As a result of the failure to 
pass the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration or to 
pass a short-term extension of the FAA, 4,000 workers at the Federal 
Aviation Administration have been put on furlough. That in and of 
itself has a major impact on our economy. That is 4,000 Americans who 
are no longer receiving a paycheck. It affects people who work for the 
FAA in such fields as safety engineers, computer scientists, 
aeronautics engineers, physical scientists--the list goes on and on--
jeopardizing the progress we have made in keeping our airways safe and 
jeopardizing the convenience to those who travel by air. Many of those 
workers live in the State of Maryland, so it is having a direct effect 
on the State I have the honor of representing in the Senate.
  It goes beyond just the Federal workforce who have been put on 
furlough as a result of the failure to pass a short-term extension of 
the FAA. It also goes to construction contracts that are funded through 
aviation funds. At many airports around the Nation, there have now been 
stop orders on construction of runways, construction of towers, and 
construction of other improvements that are important to keep our 
airports modern and safe and convenient in handling the increased 
number of air passengers.
  Let me tell my colleagues that, yes, it affects those large 
contractors who are doing the work of the Federal Government. It is 
going to affect their payrolls and their workforce, but it also affects 
a lot of small businesses in Maryland and around the Nation.
  Let me give one example. Chappy Corporation is an electrical and 
mechanical operations small business specializing in airport landing 
systems and lighting. Chappy Corporation is the lead contractor 
implementing BWI's--the main airport in Maryland--ASDE-X project, a 
runway safety mechanism that enables air traffic controllers to detect 
potential runway conflicts by providing detailed coverage of movement 
on runways and taxiways. For the safety of all of us, I hope we would 
want to move forward with those types of improvements in our major 
airports in the Nation, including the one which most Marylanders use--
BWI Airport. Chappy Corporation has been told to stop work on this 
important aviation safety project, thus decreasing their value and 
making it more difficult to make payroll. It is already tough for small 
companies out there today, and now, because of the failure of the House 
to send over to us a clean extension of the FAA bill, which we have 
done many times in the past, we have a company such as Chappy which is 
running the risk of its strength to continue with its current workforce 
and to do important work at airports for safety.
  It also goes beyond the Federal employees and the contractor 
employees who are not getting a paycheck and the contractors whose work 
has been stopped and they are not getting their construction contract 
payments. It also affects the Federal Aviation Administration's 
revenues. They collect a lot of revenue. There is a ticket tax. When a 
person buys an airline ticket, they pay a tax that goes into the 
Federal Aviation Administration's funds which are used for improvement 
projects at our airports. That amounts to about $30 million that will 
not be collected. What happens to that money? Well, we lose it in the 
Federal Treasury. People say: Well, maybe it will make it less 
expensive for people to travel. But that is not the case.
  Let me quote a headline from Reuters: ``Airlines Raise Fares as Taxes 
Lapse.''
  I am quoting:

       Many U.S. airlines have raised fares in recent days to take 
     advantage of a lapse in U.S. ticket tax collection after 
     Congress failed last week to fully fund the Federal Aviation 
     Administration's budget, but passengers are not likely to 
     notice any price difference.
       JetBlue Airways Corp. and Southwest Airlines Co. began 
     raising ticket prices by at least 7.5 percent on Friday, 
     according to FareCompare.com. Other airlines, such as Delta 
     Air Lines and United Continental Holdings Inc., boosted 
     prices on Saturday.

  So we can't collect the 7.5-percent tax and the airlines are 
pocketing the money. The people who are purchasing tickets are still 
paying the same amount even though none of that money is going to 
improve our airports. It makes no sense whatsoever.
  All of these occurrences--the Federal workers not getting a paycheck 
and being put on furlough, contractors not getting paid and 
construction work not being done, revenues not being collected that are 
necessary for the Federal Government--are hurting our economy. All are 
making it more difficult for our recovery.
  Why has this happened? The reason, quite frankly, is that we have not 
been able to pass the reauthorization bill. We passed the 
reauthorization bill early in the session, the Senate did. The House 
passed a bill about 100 days ago but has refused to appoint conferees 
to work out the differences. Then the House sends over--because we 
didn't meet the deadline--an extension bill that includes a partisan 
labor provision, an antilabor provision. Now, that should never be in 
an extension bill. It shouldn't be in any legislation. But it should be 
negotiated between the conferees of the House and Senate so we can get 
a reauthorization bill done. They shouldn't use an extension bill in 
order to get that done, and that is what they have done. As a result, 
we have the consequences of Federal workers being furloughed, 
contractors not being paid, and revenues necessary for our airport 
improvements not being collected.
  So what should we do? What do we need to do? Well, we need to first 
pass a short-term extension, a clean short-term extension without these 
killer amendments attached to allow our workforce to be able to work 
and to get their paychecks, to allow contractors to continue the work 
they are doing, and to allow the government to collect the revenue 
necessary to keep our airports modern. That is the first thing we 
should do.
  Secondly, we need to negotiate in good faith between the House and 
the Senate conferees so we can pass the Federal Aviation Administration 
reauthorization bill. That bill contains many very important 
provisions, including what we call NextGen, which is the way in which 
we can operate our air service in a much more efficient way, using less 
fuel, less time, and helping our economy. The FAA reauthorization bill 
is estimated to create hundreds of thousands of jobs for our country. 
We need to get that done. So we need to negotiate the bill, get that 
done, and all of that will help create more jobs for our community.
  I urge my colleagues, particularly those in the House, to send us a 
clean extension bill, negotiate in good faith, and let's get the FAA 
bill done.
  Actually, I see the ranking member of that committee, our colleague 
from Texas, who may wish to talk about it or some other issue.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

[[Page 12144]]


  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the 
renomination of FBI Director Mueller, but I certainly heard my 
colleague from Maryland, and I agree we must pass a clean extension of 
the FAA. We are losing the revenue, and we are losing the capability 
for projects that are ongoing to continue. Work has stopped at many of 
the airports that have building and repair projects that are supported 
by the FAA.
  Honestly, the House needs to send a clean extension. There is a clean 
extension pending in the Senate. It has been objected to by one Member. 
This is not the way to go forward. I happen to agree with much of what 
the House wants to do, but not in this way. We have to put that in the 
context of the whole bill, which we certainly should be doing, and I 
hope the House will send us a clean extension so there will not be 
another weekend of disruption and people can get on with the projects.
  I come to the floor today to speak about FBI Director Robert Mueller. 
He has been FBI Director since 2001. During a critical time when our 
country has experienced such major leadership changes on our national 
security team, this nomination offers the necessary stability and 
continuity from a proven leader who has wide support.
  Director Mueller has strong bipartisan support. He was appointed on 
August 2, 2001--just before the 9/11 tragedy--by President Bush, and he 
began serving a week before the September 11 attacks. His term is said 
to expire next week on August 2.
  The FBI has never experienced a larger transformation than while 
under his leadership, adding counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and 
cyber security to the Bureau's traditional crime-fighting mission. In 
the 10 years Mr. Mueller has been Director of the FBI, he has worked 
tirelessly to ensure that no international terrorist attacks have 
occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11, and there have been several plots 
that have been uncovered and kept from occurring.
  Director Mueller has ensured that the FBI is a full member of the 
U.S. intelligence community and serves as a critical and singular link 
between the intelligence and law enforcement communities in the United 
States. He served our Nation with valor and integrity as a marine in 
Vietnam and as a Federal prosecutor. He answered the call to service 
from President Bush to be FBI Director and is once again answering the 
call by agreeing to serve 2 more years under President Obama. He is an 
admirable public servant, and I urge his swift confirmation.


                            The Debt Ceiling

  Mr. President, we are less than 6 days away from the date the 
Department of the Treasury has signified would shut down the Federal 
Government and exhaust all borrowing authority.
  We all know we are at this point because we have a fundamental 
difference in the principles on how our government should be run. We 
all know we are at this point because the financial viability of our 
Nation is at stake.
  I believe this debt ceiling debate presents Congress with a critical 
opportunity to get our country back on a sustainable and prosperous 
path. We must send a message to the markets, to the American people, 
and to American businesses that we are going to get our fiscal house in 
order with spending cuts, caps on future spending, and permanent budget 
reform in the form of a balanced budget amendment.
  What we need now is a serious proposal to provide certainty and clear 
commitment to a reform measure that ensures spending cuts before the 
debt ceiling is raised. The Senate majority leader's and the House 
Speaker's plans have similarity, and I believe a common ground can be 
found in the two.
  First, neither of the plans proposes tax increases to achieve deficit 
reduction, and both plans aim for significant deficit savings in the 
amount of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Now, is that what we wanted? No. I would have had more cuts. We 
should be reaching for $4 trillion in cuts, not $1.2 trillion. But we 
have had plans put forward for $4 trillion, we have had plans put 
forward for more, and we could not get those through. We could not get 
one through the Senate. Furthermore, entitlements are not in the plans 
that are before us, and entitlement reform is essential for us to 
address. We can certainly put Social Security on the fiscally 
responsible path that will make it secure for 75 years with very minor 
changes and gradual changes if we do it now. This is an opportunity. 
Because we have only 6 days, we are not going to be able to do it in 
this vehicle.
  But there is a plan going forward that our leader, Senator McConnell, 
and Senator Reid, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, have put 
forward a plan. I think we need to look towards the long term and not 
let this opportunity pass to do something that will be enduring for the 
fiscal responsibility of our country.
  But we have 6 days, and now we have to do something as responsible as 
possible with the time we have left and keep open the option of doing 
what we should be doing for the long term before the end of this year. 
That is what Senator McConnell, Senator Reid, and many other Senators 
have put on the table. That is what we need to try to achieve.
  But we have made great strides. What Republicans said from the 
beginning is, they are not going to support tax increases of any kind 
in this economic climate. Businesses are not hiring. A 9.2-percent 
unemployment rate is unacceptable. Our businesses are afraid of the 
Obama health care plan and its costs. They are factoring that into 
their plans, and they are not hiring people because of the expense. Add 
more tax increases on top of that and our economy is going to be 
stagnant for a long time. So tax increases are off the table.
  But I do hope we can also make the cuts that will put us on a 
fiscally responsible plan so we will not have to address this debt 
ceiling ever again.
  So we have made a major achievement. Sometimes it seems as though 
when we have to come together to do something that is not ideal, we do 
not take acknowledgment of the fact that we are making one smaller step 
in the right direction. I think in order to avoid a fiscal calamity, we 
do need to make the strongest step we can make, which is cutting 
spending and doing it without increasing taxes.
  The idea that we could tax our way out of debt has been totally 
discounted. Neither of these plans includes tax hikes to offset the 
deficit reduction, and that is a strong endorsement. Both proposals 
also include budget enforcement of discretionary caps by requiring 
automatic across-the-board cuts if the caps are not met. That will put 
a Governor on future spending that will keep the promise we are making 
to cut spending.
  Both proposals establish a bipartisan committee to identify further 
deficit reduction that would include tax reform and fix the broken 
entitlement programs. I hope we will not throw that out the window. 
Having a commission--I know people roll their eyes and say: Oh, another 
commission. Really? Well, if we have a finite end date and have the 
opportunity to make more real cuts, it is worth another chance. We do 
need to make entitlement reforms.
  If we can do tax reform that lowers the tax rate for everyone and 
brings in revenue by having more people hired off the unemployment 
rolls, that is a win. We raise revenue by putting more people back to 
work. That is the way you raise revenue, not by tax increases that put 
a lid on hiring.
  So I think we have some good things that can be put together. We need 
to make sure we go forward, as much as we can with a divided Congress, 
and try to make a step in the right direction. Then, hopefully before 
the end of the year, we will be able to take stronger steps that will 
have a more lasting impact.
  I, for one, think it is not even a possibility that we would allow 
the debt ceiling to be met and start the process then of watching the 
President decide who gets paid and who does not.
  I have a bill I have introduced with strong support that would make 
the priority paying the interest on our debt and paying our soldiers, 
our men and women who have boots on the

[[Page 12145]]

ground in harm's way. If you are Active-Duty military, you should not 
waste 1 minute thinking about whether you are going to make your 
mortgage.
  I want to say that I commend USAA. USAA is the corporation that 
serves so many of our military personnel. They have put out their 
policy that in case the debt limit is reached, USAA has stated that for 
those military members, who are on active duty and have their paychecks 
directly deposited into their USAA account, they are going to provide a 
one-time, interest-free advance for their paycheck.
  They also know the stresses on those members of the armed services. 
USAA is doing a wonderful thing by putting the families of loved ones 
across the sea fighting for our security at ease.
  So I commend USAA. At the same time, I would like for my bill to be 
passed that assures that those military servicemembers who are not 
customers of USAA will also have the comfort of knowing their paychecks 
will be there on time. So I hope if all else fails in this body, we can 
pass the legislation that says we will pay our debts and we will pay 
our military and Social Security recipients will also be paid.
  But I do not think we ought to get that far at all. That is why I am 
urging our Members to work with our leaders. Do not throw stones at our 
leaders. They have a tough job corralling 100 pretty big egos, and we 
ought to be helping them get to the point where we are all comfortable 
that we are doing the right thing. Sometimes we cannot get 100 percent 
of what we want when there are 100 people who have their individual 
ideas as well.
  So I hope we will take this chance to do so much for our country that 
we have the opportunity to do. We may have to do it in smaller steps to 
reach that goal, but if we reach the goal, we will have secured the 
future for our children, and that is what we are here for.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The Debt Ceiling

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the 
majority leader's plan to raise the debt ceiling and reduce the 
deficit. Our Nation, as we all know, faces a looming crisis.
  The markets have already warned us. Businesses are already postponing 
investments. We know the consequences of inaction. They are 
predictable. Borrowing costs for businesses and individuals will 
escalate. Interest payments on the debt will grow. Already anemic job 
growth will decline. Our Nation will run the risk of another financial 
catastrophe and possibly a return to recession. As Chairman Bernanke 
recently stated, the outcome would be ``calamitous.''
  Many Americans are struggling. Far too many remain out of work. They 
cannot be asked to absorb the shock waves of yet another failure to 
act. It is time, as the Senator from Texas just pointed out--and others 
have--for both sides and both Chambers to find common ground.
  Reasonable and responsible editorials from across the country have 
endorsed the majority leader's proposal. Well-meaning people on all 
sides have a genuine concern and have shown genuine concerns. We all--
most all of us--share those concerns about the implications of not 
acting.
  There are in the other party some individuals who view themselves as 
revolutionaries in the best sense of the word. They appear less 
concerned with the here and now than with where they want to take the 
country in the future. We all understand the two are connected and that 
looking to the future is vital to the country. The question, though, is 
the harm that might be caused by precipitous action.
  Columnist George Will wrote a column a few days ago likening the tea 
party movement of today to the beginning of the Goldwater-Reagan 
conservative era; that the Goldwater movement of 1964, even though it 
did not bring Senator Goldwater to the Presidency, was the first step 
toward the conservative revolution that culminated in Ronald Reagan's 
election in 1980.
  I am going to quote a couple of sentences Mr. Will wrote:

       The tea party, [which in his view is] the most welcome . . 
     . development since the Goldwater insurgency in 1964, lacks 
     only the patience necessary when America lacks the consensus 
     required to propel fundamental change. . . .

  Mr. Will goes on to say:

       If Washington's trajectory could be turned as quickly as 
     tea partyers wish . . . their movement would not be as 
     necessary as it is.

  Those are Mr. Will's words. That is Mr. Will's considered opinion. 
That may be so, and it may not be so. But the first rule of good 
governance is to do no harm. That does not mean we should not make 
cuts. That does not mean we should not look toward some of the 
directions this debate has taken us. But it means be careful when you 
are dealing with a fragility of national policy at a time like this.
  Some things sound better in a speech to a room full of activists than 
they actually are in the reality of how to govern and the practicality 
of how to actually bring about change, where change is needed.
  Senator Goldwater did not attempt to torpedo the economy in order to 
get his way. Ronald Reagan, in whose administration I proudly served, 
by the way, raised the national debt 18 times--more than any other 
President.
  I fought in Vietnam as an infantry marine. I am very proud of that. 
Those of us who did fight in Vietnam all remember the regretful quote 
of one infantry officer who lamented that during one battle he had to 
call in heavy artillery and airstrikes on a populated village; that he 
had to destroy a village in order to save it.
  I do not think the Republicans who are using this issue as a lever to 
bring about their view of radical change want to look back at a 
fractured economic recovery, a downgraded credit rating for the world's 
No. 1 economy, a citizenry that has become more angry and less capable 
of predicting its own financial future, and then say, as if all of this 
were not predictable, that they destroyed the American economy in order 
to save it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know my distinguished colleague, the 
senior Senator from West Virginia, is going to be seeking recognition, 
and perhaps others. I certainly have no objection to that. I realize we 
are on the Mueller nomination.
  I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any interruption for 
other business, the Mueller vote still be at the time we originally 
planned, which is around 4 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                          FAA Reauthorization

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, last week I came to the Senate floor 
to ask unanimous consent to pass something called--a very easy thing--a 
clean extension of the FAA bill, something the Senate has done 20 
times. This is the 21st time--4 years waiting to pass a reauthorization 
bill.
  But for the first time in these 4 years, the Republicans objected to 
this extraordinarily routine request. Shortly, I will renew my request 
to pass our 21st short-term extension of the FAA. But before I do, I 
want to highlight the very painful consequences of failing to pass this 
bill, which we can only do by getting a clean extension.
  By objecting to my request last week, Republican Senators made sure 
that 4,000 hard-working FAA employees were furloughed already. Hundreds 
of critical airport safety capacity air traffic control projects were 
brought to

[[Page 12146]]

a halt. Payments were stopped to hundreds of small businesses dependent 
upon reimbursement from the FAA for their work.
  The Federal Government is being forced to forego almost $30 million a 
day in aviation tax revenue that is critical, obviously, to supporting 
our overall airport infrastructure program. The introduction of the 
newest Boeing aircraft is being delayed because the FAA cannot certify 
that the planes operate safely.
  I know in Washington we have a tendency to view these fights as 
purely policy disagreements that have no real impact on people. I 
stress that there is an enormous effect on people and businesses, large 
and small, and on the economy of the United States. Because some 
Republicans have refused to allow another clean extension of the FAA 
programs, something we have done 20 times in the last 4 years, we are 
inflicting real pain on very real people.
  People are suffering. Small businesses are hurting. We are losing 
jobs and will lose a lot more. Even consumers are losing out on the 
airline ticket tax holidays.
  The majority of the airline industry has greedily chosen to pocket 
those revenues rather than reducing ticket prices. In other words, they 
have a tax holiday because the expiration of the tax has already taken 
place a number of days ago. So they are taking this tax holiday, and 
rather than leaving at the present level the cost of a ticket for 
consumers--as Alaska Airlines is doing and Virgin Airlines is doing and 
one other airline is doing--they are taking the money to themselves, 
giving it to themselves.
  I find that extraordinary. It reminds me of ``Too Big to Fail''--the 
movie--the greed, the promise to help with small mortgages and they got 
all the money and didn't spend a dime to help with small mortgages.
  The damage we are doing to our aviation system is incredibly real. If 
we fail to act in a timely manner, it may be so devastating as to 
become irreversible. It makes sense when we think about it. If one were 
to operate on somebody and cut beyond a certain point, they can't 
reverse the damage.
  With so much pain being inflicted on so many, one may ask why my 
Republican colleagues have refused repeated requests to pass a clean 
extension--something we have done 20 times in the past 4 years.
  They are willing, evidently, to hurt so many of these people for the 
benefit of one company. It is called Delta Airlines. As the chairman of 
the House Transportation Committee has stated publicly, the House 
inserted language on the Essential Air Service Program to leverage the 
Senate on including provisions relating to the National Mediation 
Board.
  What do I mean? What they sent to us was all about essential air 
service. But that is not what it is about at all. The chairman, my 
counterpart in the House told me many times that essential air service 
is not a big deal to him. He doesn't particularly have a dog in this 
hunt. We need to do some reform on it, which we offered to do. He 
didn't mention a thing about the National Mediation Board. That is the 
only thing that motivates the House.
  Delta Airlines is nonunion. The other airlines, for the most part, 
are union. Delta Airlines has had four elections in the last several 
years to unionize. Each time the company has prevailed over the union. 
So one might ask: Why is it that they are so strongly suggesting they 
need this National Mediation Board, which they changed in their bill.
  It had been changed 2 years ago to say the number of votes that were 
cast were the number of votes that were reflected. In their bill, they 
want to say that anybody who does not vote in a union certification 
election, by definition, has voted no. I have never heard of that in 
America anywhere else. It is a rather ridiculous ploy.
  This is not policy, this is pettiness. It has become the typical ``my 
way or the highway'' thinking of the House Republicans.
  I note that we have forgone almost $150 million in tax revenues by 
failing to act. It will go up by about $25 million a day, which, when 
we think about it, would come close to paying for the whole Essential 
Air Service Program anyway, in just a week or so. Again, by the end of 
the week, we will have lost more revenue used for aviation 
infrastructure spending than on the entire Essential Air Service 
Program cost all of last year. It is embarrassing.
  I wish my Republican colleagues would have defended the prerogatives 
of the Senate. Instead, some chose to back the House leadership.
  Last week, as my friend from Utah--who is here now--outlined so 
honestly, Senate Republicans are not permitting the Senate to pass a 
clean extension because they want the Senate to accept language 
altering 85 years of labor law and legal precedent.
  I wish I understood why the policy objections of one company--Delta 
Airlines--mattered so much to so few and also mattered so much more 
than the livelihood of thousands of American workers who have or will 
be furloughed.
  Last year, the CEO of Delta made $9 million. Whether that was a 
salary or salary plus options, I know not. Delta paid its top 
executives almost $20 million. Yet it is fighting to make sure its 
employees cannot organize--they already had four elections, and in all 
four Delta has prevailed--for fear they may secure a few extra dollars 
in their paychecks.
  At the same time, it is pushing for special interest provisions in 
the FAA bill. Delta is not shy. Delta announced it was abandoning air 
services to 26 small, rural communities--leaving many of them, 
obviously, without any air service. One only has to live in a small, 
rural community or a State such as mine to understand what that means 
and what the cost truly is.
  Delta then had the gall to announce publicly it would seek EAS 
subsidies to continue this service. Maybe Mr. Anderson and his 
colleagues can forgo some of their own salaries to help subsidize the 
air service. That is not my business. Maybe they could use some of the 
millions of dollars they are collecting in a tax holiday windfall to 
pay for this service. That is not my business, but it is theirs, and it 
is shameful.
  Let me be clear. House Republicans and their Senate allies have 
thrown nearly 4,000 FAA employees out of work already, stopped critical 
airport safety projects, hurt hundreds of small businesses, and gutted 
the Aviation Trust Fund--or began to--so Delta Airlines--that one 
company--doesn't have to allow its employees to organize in a fair or 
timely manner, if they chose to.
  The needs of one company should not, in any deliberative body, 
dictate the safety and soundness of our aviation system. We need to 
pass a clean extension that will get people back to work and businesses 
and their employees back to work and build out our airport 
infrastructure.
  It is so simple to pass a clean extension bill. We have done it so 
often. We have done it 20 times. The one time where there was some 
policy attached was 2 years ago, when the House and the Senate totally 
agreed on what was in the extension, and it passed. But it is such a 
simple thing to do. By not doing it, it is holding up our whole 
process.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2553

  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that, as in legislative session, 
the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 109, H.R. 2553; 
that a Rockefeller-Hutchison substitute amendment, which is at the 
desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time 
and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. I object, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I will take a few minutes to explain why 
I am, once again, objecting to the legislation offered by my dear 
friend from West Virginia, my Finance Committee colleague. I wish to 
make it absolutely clear that a long-term FAA reauthorization is a 
priority for this country, and it is a personal priority for me.

[[Page 12147]]

  Once again, I point out that I have worked with Chairman Baucus on 
reporting a Finance Committee title to the bill that passed the Senate 
earlier this year. The current lapse in FAA taxes and expenditures 
authority from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund is a detrimental 
situation brought on by the Senate majority's refusal to discontinue 
granting excessive favors for big labor and their refusal to cut any 
wasteful spending.
  As I have said, I share House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee Chairman Mica's frustration that favors to organized labor 
have overshadowed the prospects for a long-term FAA reauthorization.
  Last year, the National Mediation Board changed the rules under which 
employees of airlines and railroads are able to unionize. For decades, 
the standard has been that a majority of employees would have to agree 
in an election to form a union. However, the National Mediation Board 
rules changed that standard so all it takes to unionize is a majority 
of employees voting. This means the NMB wants to count an employee who 
doesn't vote as voting for big labor. Somehow, organized labor is able 
to claim it is democratic to appropriate someone else's vote without 
that person's input and participation.
  The FAA reauthorization bill that passed the House earlier this year 
undoes this heavyhanded rule and lets airline employees decide for 
themselves how to use their own votes. The House bill would merely undo 
a big partisan favor done at the behest of big labor and put efforts to 
unionize airline workforces on the same footing they have been on for 
years.
  The House bill does not create a new hurdle to unionization. Instead, 
it restores the longstanding ability of airline employees to make 
decisions for themselves. The House bill only undoes the NMB action 
that was taken to reverse 70 years of precedent for narrow political 
gain.
  In addition to an impulse to cater to big labor, the Senate majority 
also is resistant to any attempt to cut any government spending, no 
matter how wasteful that spending may be. The House bill I am going to 
ask unanimous consent for in a few minutes has aroused the ire of the 
majority because it contains a provision that would limit essential air 
service eligibility to communities that are located 90 or more miles 
from a large- or medium-hub airport. This would save $12.5 million a 
year. That is right, million with an ``m'', not a ``b'' or a ``t.''
  The majority is resisting a provision that already passed this body 
as part of the Senate's long-term reauthorization bill that would save 
$12.5 million a year, and they are willing to put the FAA's finance at 
risk in the process. The House bill I am going to offer also contains 
an additional proposal to limit essential air service subsidies for 
communities where the cost per passenger is greater than $1,000. This 
provision would affect a grand total of three airports in the whole 
country. It is my understanding these three airports would also have 
ceased to receive EAS subsidies under another provision in the Senate-
passed, long-term FAA bill that limited subsidies to airports averaging 
10 or more passengers a day.
  To sum this up, our friends on the other side, the Democrats, are 
holding this up over wasteful spending and handouts for President 
Obama's big union allies.
  The point is, the Senate majority has cut the FAA off from its 
primary source of financing and created confusion for travel companies 
and tax-paying passengers by objecting to a short-term extension 
measure that doesn't do one single thing that is not done by a bill 
that passed the Senate by unanimous consent on April 7 of this year.
  I wish to briefly discuss and hopefully clear away some of that 
confusion. Passengers who bought tickets while the taxes were still 
being collected may be entitled to a refund if they are traveling 
during a period in which the taxes have lapsed. I wish to make it clear 
that the inability of the Senate majority to process legislation should 
not constitute an additional burden to the already beleaguered travel 
industry. It is the responsibility of the IRS to refund ticket taxes, 
and while I recognize they want to do the right thing for taxpayers, I 
encourage the IRS to work closely with the travel industry. The travel 
industry is not responsible for the lapse in FAA taxes, and they should 
not bear extra costs because of that.
  The lack of a long-term bill is bad for airports all across the 
country because they don't have the funding stability to plan and 
complete projects. Kicking the can farther down the road is not a 
viable alternative to actually doing what is in the best interests of 
all parties.
  As a Senate conferee to the FAA bill, I stand ready to do everything 
I can to get to work with my House and Senate colleagues on a long-term 
FAA reauthorization, as soon as they are willing to get down to work.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2553

  Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2553, 
which was received from the House. I ask unanimous consent that the 
bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Is there objection?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on 
the Mueller nomination?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Mueller nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, how much time remains until the vote on 
the Mueller nomination?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I hope all Senators will step forward and 
vote for this nomination. I can think of no reason why they should not. 
Director Mueller is typical of many in our government who serve the 
people of America tirelessly, without any gain to themselves but 
instead for what is best for all Americans and for our country. 
Director Mueller has worked--along with the thousands of individuals at 
the Department of Justice and the FBI who work around the clock every 
day to keep America safe to protect us from crime and to protect us 
from terrorists. Unfortunately some people try to lump together and 
deride government employees. The fact is the people at the FBI and 
Department of Justice are very brave men and women, many of whom put 
their lives on the line for us day by day, and we ought to acknowledge 
that.
  Bob Mueller is the public face of the FBI, as its long-serving 
Director. Amazingly, he and Ann, his wife of many years, along with 
their grown children, are able to separate that their private life from 
the public life. Like so many who serve this country, Director 
Mueller's public life takes an inordinate amount of his time, and I 
think it is a testament to his dedication that he was willing to do 
this job for another two years, but it is also important to acknowledge 
the sacrifice of his wife Ann and his children. I think all Americans 
share in the good fortune that when the President asked Director 
Mueller to step forward and serve for another 2 years, he answered the 
call.
  I also want to compliment President Obama. He knew he had the 
opportunity to name somebody who would be there as long as he, Barack 
Obama, may be President, whether he serves one term or two, and beyond. 
Instead, the President, as he has often done, did what he thought was 
best for the country.
  Director Mueller is a fine public servant, and I would urge all 
Senators to vote ``aye'' on this nomination.
  Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute.

[[Page 12148]]


  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I see no one else seeking the floor, so I 
yield back the remainder of the time, which is now about 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Robert S. Mueller, III, of California, to be Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation for a term expiring September 4, 2013.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Ex.]

                              YEAS -- 100

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, a motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. The President will 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________