Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we invoked cloture last evening on a motion to proceed to legislation that will extend unemployment benefits during what has been the deepest recession since the Great Depression. We have had objections from the other side to extending unemployment benefits as an emergency, saying these cannot be extended because they will cost too much and add to the deficit and this and that.

It is interesting to me that in this country, when our country has experienced an economic downturn, we have always dealt on an emergency basis with the most vulnerable Americans by extending unemployment insurance benefits. Why? For two reasons. No. 1, when you work for a living in this country, you actually pay premiums for an unemployment insurance plan that then kicks in when you lose your job. This is not as if somebody is getting something for nothing. People who are working in this country are actually paying into a plan that provides for unemployment insurance. And, No. 2, extending unemployment insurance during a severe economic downturn is just the right thing to do for the most vulnerable Americans.

I find it interesting that the very people who have been standing in the way of doing this, saying it is the Federal budget deficits, that they are too big--I agree they are too big. But I have not seen any of these folks out here when it really matters. This is taking on the most vulnerable Americans. They are out here taking on that issue.

How about the big issues? How about fighting a war and not paying for one penny of it over a 10-year period? In the 8 years of the previous administration, we went to war, and we were told by President George W. Bush: You are not going to pay for a penny of this; and if you try to pay for it, I will veto the bill. It is all going to be emergency spending. The fact is, we should have seen the same folks out here complaining about that issue.

Or how about going back 10 or 11 years when legislation was passed that built these huge corporate financial pyramids that got engaged in all kinds of unbelievable risky speculation and ran the country into the economic ditch and caused $15 trillion of American wealth to vanish and cause these unbelievable increases in deficits? I did not see them out here on that issue either. In fact, many of them voted for the legislation that repealed the protections that were put in place after the Great Depression and actually allowed to happen what has happened in the last 10 years that caused this collapse.

I don't know. It seems to me this last stand on the budget deficit, to say let's have the last stand when it comes to the most vulnerable Americans, that is our last stand--how about a last stand, for example, on some of the affluent Americans? How about a last stand on carried interest? I encourage my colleagues who have been out here worried about the budget deficit to come out here while I am here and talk about changing the carried interest rules.

What does that mean? It sounds like a foreign language to some. It means some in this country are earning more income than anybody in America and paying the lowest income tax rates. Why is that the case? That is what the law allows them to do. We have been trying to change the law, but some of my colleagues do not want to change the law. That would be increasing taxes.

Let me give an example of increasing taxes. How about increasing taxes on a person who made $3.6 billion in a year--which, by the way, is about $10 million a day--and pays 15 percent income taxes? How about if we say to that person and others like him or her: How about you pay the same kind of taxes everybody else in this country pays? That will reduce the Federal budget deficit.

I ask my colleagues, do you want to join me to do that? I am all for reducing the Federal budget deficit. Tighten our belts, reduce spending--I am all for that. But, also, how about asking people to pay their fair share of taxes?

I said yesterday, as I said before, that we have some of the biggest financial institutions in this country that in the last decade decided to buy sewer systems from foreign cities in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes. How about let's make sure we close all loopholes, such as that loophole, that say: You want all the benefits America has to offer? How about paying the taxes and being responsible as an American citizen for things that you are required to do?

If we want to reduce the Federal budget deficit let's take some real big hunks at doing that by, yes, reducing some spending, and there is plenty of waste. I chaired 20 hearings on the biggest waste, fraud, and abuse in the history of this country; that is, the contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will not go through it in detail today. I am telling you, it is the biggest waste in American history in these contracts.

Let's cut some of that spending. Let's raise some taxes on those who are not paying their fair share, those who are doing everything they can to avoid paying taxes in this country. Let's cut the deficit, but let's not come out here and pretend that the last stand is to take on the most vulnerable Americans at a time when we should extend unemployment insurance. That makes no sense.

Mr. President, if you know much about economics, you understand during a steep economic downturn there is substantially less revenue coming into the Federal Government. We have lost something like $400 billion a year in revenue. At exactly the same time when we have a steep economic downturn, the economic stabilizers kick in--unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other programs for people who have been laid off, out of work, in trouble. That is exactly what we do during

an economic downturn. We have less revenue and more spending. That is temporary because the minute we come out of this and restore economic health, then we do the things necessary to get rid of those budget deficits and put the country back on track to a better course.

I don't know, this has been a Byzantine circumstance to see who comes to the floor of the Senate and say: You know what. Now we are going to make our last stand, and it is going to be when you want to give some unemployment insurance to the most vulnerable Americans, those who have lost their jobs.

Someplace in this country, all around the country today, about 17 million people or so woke up jobless. They have lost their jobs. They do not have work. They got dressed and went out with some hope in their hearts that maybe they could find a job. But tonight will come and they will not have found a job. The question they ask is, Am I going to get the funding I was told would exist, for which I paid insurance premiums for unemployment insurance? Am I going to get that help during this period of time? This was not my fault. I was laid off because of a very steep economic recession.

The answer should be from this Congress: Yes, you are going to get that help. We understand the obligation and the need to do that during this economic recession.

My hope is we will get a little cooperation and see if we can do that. Again, I am very interested in tackling this Federal budget deficit. Let's tackle it in big ways in the areas where substantial additional revenue that should come in is now not coming in because people are avoiding paying their taxes, some of those who are the wealthiest Americans.

Let's also tighten our belt and cut spending in areas I just described. Let's not decide the last stand is to take on the most vulnerable Americans who woke up this morning jobless and, in some cases, hopeless and helpless if they do not have money to buy food, pay rent, and buy medicine.

We can do better than that. There is a moral imperative for this Congress to at long last do the right thing.

I did not come to the floor to say that, but because that is the business of the day, I wanted to, on behalf of Senator Baucus and Senator Reid and others, say that we have an obligation, and we are trying to work through this issue.

Last night by one vote we were able to invoke cloture with almost no help--we got a little help to get cloture invoked. Now we will get on with the business of seeing if we can, during a very deep economic downturn, extend unemployment insurance as we are required to do and as we have an obligation to do.

I hope the answer is yes. That is our responsibility. That is our obligation. If there are those who come to the floor later wanting to join me in dealing with the issues I just described--spending cuts, revenue increases from those who are not paying their fair share, some of the biggest financial companies in the country--let's join and do that. I am here and very happy to do it.

Energy

Mr. President, there are many things on the agenda for this country that need doing. We are trying to work through this list. We worked on a health care reform bill that I understand was very controversial. The fact is, health care is such a significant part of our economy and the costs are growing so rapidly that we have to try to address it, and we did.

There is another issue, however, that I want to talk about today, and that is the issue of energy. We do not think much about energy because it becomes kind of second nature to the way we live. We get up in the morning and the first thing we do is turn off an electric alarm clock, perhaps, and then flick a switch and lights go on. We do almost everything without thinking, and that reflects on our use of energy. Someone makes coffee. They turn on a stove to make coffee or plug in a toaster to make toast. They get in their car to drive to work, perhaps take a shower beforehand with hot water from a hot water heater. All of those, even before they get started, reflect the prodigious use of energy in our country.

Almost two-thirds of the oil that we use in this country comes from other countries outside our shores. I have spoken often about this fact. But we stick straws in this planet and suck oil out of it. We suck out about 85 million barrels of oil a day and one-fourth is destined to come to the United States because that is how much we need and how much we use. The problem is that about two-thirds of it comes from other countries. Some of it comes from countries that do not like us very much.

The question is, How do we provide greater energy security for our country, more energy security so we are less vulnerable? Second, and just as important, how do we change our mix of energy and our use of energy to protect our planet with respect to the issue of climate change?

Let me talk about this for a moment and say the following: First, climate change is important. There is something happening to our climate, and we ought to address it. Even the skeptics should at least be in support of a series of no-regret steps that if 50 years from now you decide that climate change was not happening, at least you have done something you don't have regrets doing because they were the right things to do. Even the skeptics should agree about that. But, yes, something is happening to our climate and we ought to take some steps to address them. I am in favor of capping carbon. The use of carbon and emitting it into the airshed is a serious problem. We need to have a lower-carbon future. I am in favor of capping carbon emissions. But it has to be done in a smart way and an appropriate way, and I am in favor of that. I am also in favor of putting a price on carbon.

There are some people who I think that I and others who want to bring the Energy bill to the floor of the Senate--which came from the Energy Committee and the work we did last year--don't support addressing climate change. I support the effort to address climate change. I support a cap on carbon, and I support the opportunity to decide that we are going to not only lower carbon emissions, but put a price on carbon, which is a way to accomplish all that. What I don't support is what is called ``cap and trade'' as the mechanism to do that because I don't have any interest or willingness to consign a $1 trillion carbon securities market to Wall Street to speculate on. There are other ways to do this.

Let me just say that the issue of restraining carbon and putting a price on carbon can be done in many different ways. Some of my colleagues say: Well, the only way to do it is what we call cap and trade. I don't believe that, and I don't support that for the reasons I have described. There could be a carbon fee, a straightforward carbon fee, which is much less complicated. There is the cap-and-dividend approach, which has some advantages as well. There is a sector-by- sector approach. There are a number of hybrid approaches being discussed. There is the command-and-control approach, where you simply say: Here is the restriction. So, there are many different approaches to this issue of restricting carbon and trying to price carbon.

But here is what is happening. We passed an energy bill out of the energy committee last June. It was bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats joined together and we passed an energy bill and here is what it does: It will reduce the amount of carbon emitted into the airshed, it will maximize the production of energy from wind and solar sources, which are carbon free, and it will build the transmission capability around the country, a superhighway of transmission so you can gather energy from where the sun shines and the wind blows and put it on the wire to move the energy where it is needed to a load center. We also have a renewable electricity standard, called an RES, requiring 15 percent of all electricity be done from renewables. I would offer an amendment to take that to 20 percent, if we can get the bill to the floor of the Senate.

That is just an example of what is in the bill. In fact, this is a chart reflecting that it will reduce our dependence on foreign energy and it will increase domestic production. It was my amendment that opens the eastern Gulf of Mexico for production. It is the only area that is not now open and has substantial reserves of both oil and natural gas. We establish a renewability

electricity standard, create a transmission superhighway. We electrify and diversify the vehicle fleet in our country. Seventy percent of the oil used in this country is used in the vehicle fleet. So that is very important. The bill contains substantial provisions dealing with energy efficiency and new green energy technology.

All those things are exactly what we would do if we had already passed a climate change bill to say: All right. Now how do you implement it? What are the provisions you develop in order to implement this, to have less carbon emitted? This is what you would do.

So many of us have been impatient about trying to get this bill to the floor of the Senate, but here is what I understand. I understand that those who say they want climate change legislation first have said they don't want an energy bill to come to the floor of the Senate because they want there to be some agreement on climate change, and until they get that, they don't want the Energy bill to come to the floor of the Senate. My view is, we should bring the Energy bill to the floor of the Senate. Let's all of us decide this is a priority. When the bill comes to the floor of the Senate, let's reach an agreement on some kind of climate change amendment to this bill and move ahead.

I wouldn't support cap and trade, but there are other things I will support that will put a price on carbon. But why would we end this Congress not having achieved some very substantial achievements in a bipartisan energy bill that will actually reduce the emission of carbon in the atmosphere? That makes no sense to me.

As we go forward, I know this is an issue that requires it fit into a broader set of issues--immigration reform is discussed these days, Wall Street reform or financial reform is going to come to the floor at some point, which will take some time, appropriations bills, and there are many other things--but I still believe it is very important that we diversify America's energy supply, that we maximize the production of renewable energy, and that we produce more here at home and, yes, that includes oil and natural gas. The use of coal is also very important, the use of coal using new technology to decarbonize. We can do all these things. Our legislation includes the provisions that will accomplish that.

So, what we need to have happen is to have our legislation come to the floor of the Senate from the Energy Committee. I would say to all those who wish to work on the broader piece of climate change to add to it as an amendment. I support a carbon cap, and I will support pricing carbon. That does not include support for cap and trade. If we haven't learned anything from the last decade or so about what Wall Street would do with a $1 trillion securities market, then we are pretty ill- prepared to legislate on these issues.

There are not a lot of weeks left in this legislative session, and my fervent hope, I would say to those who have been working on climate change and blocking our ability to bring an energy bill to the floor of the Senate, is that we can perhaps find a way to work together to bring the Energy bill to the floor. That is the way the Senate works. The Senate works by running things through a committee and working hard to achieve compromise. We did that on a bipartisan basis and passed a piece of legislation that is a Democratic-Republican energy bill that reduces carbon, maximizes renewable energy, opens additional areas of drilling in the eastern gulf, builds an interstate highway of transmission capability, has the first ever RES, renewable electricity standard, and all those things are important to this country. We should not leave them at the starting gate. Let's at least decide that this, too, is a priority for our country. Yes, health care is a priority, but so is energy.

Let me make one final point. If tomorrow morning, instead of flicking that switch, shutting off the alarm clock, taking a shower with the use of an electric water heater, putting a piece of bread in the toaster, taking something out of your refrigerator and using all that energy even before you get in your car to go to work, if, God forbid, somehow terrorists interrupted the pipeline of foreign oil coming to this country--and there are a lot of points where that possibility exists-- this country's economy would be flat on its back. We are, in my judgment, far too vulnerable with the percentage of our economy that runs on foreign oil and there is a way to respond to that and a way to address it and much of that is included in this legislation that has already passed the Energy Committee on a bipartisan vote.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about one of the recess appointments President Obama made when the Senate was not in session. Before I get into my concern about this, I wish to emphasize the fact that I have been the ranking member or the chairman of the Oversight of Government Management and the District of Columbia and then several years ago the Federal Workforce. Working with Senator Akaka, we have conscientiously tried to make the most significant improvements in the Federal service, in terms of human capital and looking at title V of the code that deals with our Federal workers.

If we look at the past and determine why we have had some real bad situations in the Federal Government, it is we have not had the right people with the right knowledge and skills at the right time in the right place. The whole effort has been to try to improve the management of our government, to work with Senator Akaka to try to get Federal agencies off the high-risk list. The high-risk list is agencies subject to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.

I first share that with you because I think it may cast a little bit of a light on what I am going to talk about this evening.

The President nominated Rafael Borras to serve as the Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management on June 24, 2009. That is June of last year. I met with Mr. Borras to discuss his experience, qualifications, and goals for the Department of Homeland Security and also served as the ranking member when the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held his nomination hearing on July 29, 2009.

I carefully reviewed Mr. Borras's background and resume and stated qualifications and heard what people he worked for and what people who worked for him said about him. Based on all that, I placed a hold on Mr. Borras's nomination because I believe he is unqualified to be the DHS Under Secretary for Management.

On March 27 of this year, the President ignored my concerns and my hold and made Mr. Borras 1 of his 15 recess appointments, and I want to know why. I want to know why. I do not generally oppose nominees, and I do not put holds on lightly. When I do, I explain why I put on holds. I do not hide out. I let people know why I put on a hold.

I am extremely concerned about the management challenges the Department of Homeland Security faces, which are wide ranging and far reaching.

When Congress established the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we initiated the Federal Government's largest restructuring since the Department of Defense was created in 1947. What is more, we told the Department to protect us from terrorism and natural disasters, while addressing the organizational, operational, and cultural challenges associated with merging 22 agencies and 170,000 employees into one entity. It is probably the biggest management challenge in the history of the world. The Government Accountability Office cautioned about the challenges the merger would cause and placed the Department of Homeland Security on its high-risk list in January of 2003.

Today, DHS is the third largest Cabinet department with about 230,000 employees and an annual budget of $50 billion. Management challenges persist and the Department remains on GAO's high-risk list. Additionally, the DHS inspector general, the DHS Chief Financial Officer, and the Homeland Security Advisory Council's Cultural Task Force have also identified management challenges at the DHS. They recognize they have some big problems.

DHS is too big an entity, spending too much money, with too important a job to be deemed susceptible to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement year after year, and it is imperative that the right person be put in place to address those challenges. I do not believe Mr. Borras is the person, and I do not think he will move the Department forward toward getting off the Government Accountability Office's high-risk list.

My concerns about Mr. Borras's qualifications and the hold on the nomination, as I mentioned, were not secret. I wrote to the majority leader, I wrote to Secretary Napalitano, and I also wrote to the President to outline my concerns.

I announced at a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on DHS management challenges that I was holding the nomination because of those concerns, but no one approached me to discuss those concerns. The Senate did not debate Mr. Borras's qualifications. No cloture motion was filed. Rather, my concerns were ignored, and this recess appointment was made.

I would like for someone in the administration to explain why things were done this way. I assume because it is everyone knows Mr. Borras is not the best person to manage our third largest department, and any debate we had would have made his lack of qualifications plainly apparent. So we did not debate it.

If the Senate had taken the time to debate this nomination, I would have explained in 2007, Congress set statutory requirements for the DHS Under Secretary for Management. By the way, we helped create that special Under Secretary for Management because we believed the Department needed someone who would get up early in the morning and go to bed late at night and move on the transformation that is needed in the Department to get it off the high-risk list.

We required the Under Secretary to have extensive executive-level leadership and management experience, a demonstrated ability to manage large and complex organizations, and a proven record in achieving positive operational results. Mr. Borras did not meet those statutory requirements because he does not have the appropriate executive-level leadership experience or demonstrated ability to manage an organization as large and complex as DHS.

The administration and Mr. Borras point to his experience as one of several vice presidents in one region of a Fortune 500 company, as a regional administrator for one region of the General Services Administration, and as a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of Commerce. I do not believe, and most people do not believe, these experiences are in any way comparable to the challenges Mr. Borras will face at DHS.

Mr. Borras has never overseen a budget anywhere near as large as the DHS budget. His own assertions indicate that the largest budget he ever was involved with was $4.5 billion at the Department of Commerce. That is roughly one-tenth the size of the DHS

$50 billion budget, and Mr. Borras was never directly responsible for the Commerce Department budget. He was just one of those who worked at the Department.

Additionally, Mr. Borras has never managed hundreds of thousands of employees, such as the 230,000 he will be responsible for at DHS. At most, he asserts he was directly responsible for managing 1,500 employees while a GSA regional administrator.

He has also never overseen a procurement budget similar to that at DHS, where in 2005, $10 billion was spent on 63,000 contracts. Mr. Borras asserts that the largest procurement budget he has been involved with was one-quarter of that, $2.5 billion, while he was at the General Services Administration.

Given the vast difference between Mr. Borras's experience and the requirements of the job, I agree with two of his former supervisors who told me this job is a big leap from what he has done in the public and private sector. In other words, they said this is a big leap from what he has done.

Further, when you compare Mr. Borras's qualifications with the qualifications of past nominees for this position, it is even more concerning.

For example, Paul Schneider had over 38 years of Federal service when he was nominated to be the DHS Under Secretary for Management, and much of that experience was with the Navy, a large, complicated organization such as DHS.

Similarly, Elaine Duke had more than 25 years of progressively difficult Federal Government experience, primarily within the Department of Defense, when she was nominated to be DHS Under Secretary for Management.

I do not mean to imply only career civil servants are appropriate for this role, but Mr. Borras's resume does not include high-level managerial positions in organizations that are similarly complex to DHS. I think the Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management needs a proven record in that regard.

I emphasize again, we set this up specifically to be responsible for transformation and to deal with the management problems of the Department. We laid it out: This is the kind of person we ought to be putting into this position.

Additionally and unfortunately, Mr. Borras demonstrated a lack of attention to detail on two separate occasions in his personal life, which makes me wonder whether he is prepared to successfully undertake all the responsibilities required of the DHS Under Secretary for Management, such as addressing DHS's low rank on the ``Best Places to Work in the Federal Government'' study and overseeing the billions of dollars the DHS spends on hard-to-manage projects such as SBInet.

I feel so strongly about Mr. Borras's lack of qualifications that I am no longer seeking to work to enact a 5-year term for the person who holds this position. The thought was, when we put this position together, we would give it a 5-year term because we knew that if we were going to do transformation, it was going to take more than 1 year. We would give that individual 5 years to go forward and work on nothing but transformation, transformation, transformation, so this Department would come together and get it off the high-risk list.

The Government Accountability Office suggested that such a term would help improve the management function at DHS, and I have been advocating for such legislation for the last couple years. My bill has bipartisan support and has passed the Senate before, but now I don't want it enacted because I am afraid of having Mr. Borras in this position for 5 years. I don't think he has the skills necessary to get the job done. So that is gone.

I know I am not alone in my concerns. Mr. Borras was passed out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee largely on a party-line vote, but it should be noted that two Democratic members of the committee expressed concern about his qualifications when we were debating his nomination.

In fact, one of the Democrats who voted for the nomination said she was doing so to send the nomination to the floor, but that she wanted the committee to take a closer look at Mr. Borras's qualifications to make sure he had the management skills necessary to manage the Department of Homeland Security.

I wonder, did such a review ever occur? If it did, it did not include me even though I am the ranking member on the committee's Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee. I should have asked Senator Akaka if he had ever been consulted, but a dime will get you a dollar that they didn't talk to him at all.

I wasn't a strong supporter in creating the Department of Homeland Security. Standing it up created real challenges, and those challenges remain. But the Department exists, and we owe it to the United States and our children and grandchildren to ensure that the Department is as good as it can be. I think we need to ask our President why he made this recess appointment when doubt existed on both sides of the aisle about Mr. Borras's qualifications. What was the stated reason for the appointment? Will somebody explain why the appointment was made?

I sat with the Secretary, and we talked about it. Never in all of my conversations did anyone come forward and say he should get the job; that he is qualified for the job. The fact that no one in the administration defended Mr. Borras or explained why they thought he was qualified to be a DHS Under Secretary for Management still remains a puzzlement to me. I think somebody owes it to me, to Senator Akaka, and to the Members of this Senate to explain why they put this man in this position under a recess appointment, particularly when we have an agency that, if we don't have the kind of attention given to it, will never be in a position where it can get off the high-risk list.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill I am introducing today, the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010, bipartisan legislation that concerns both our national security and America's democratic institutions.

I am proud to be joined by my colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich in introducing this bill. I also want to thank our cosponsors, Chairman Akaka of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee as well as Chairman Lieberman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

I am appreciative of their support and for their input while drafting this bill.

I also would like to thank the Partnership for Public Service, a leading nonpartisan, nonprofit organization in the area of government accountability and reform. Their recent ``Ready to Govern'' report on the 2008-2009 transition made a number of important recommendations that are included in our bill.

As the strong, bipartisan support for this bill demonstrates, this is not a political issue.

After the attacks of September 11, we face new security challenges that require close cooperation between outgoing and incoming administrations, and the recent economic crisis underscores the importance of a smooth handoff on domestic policy as well.

This was highlighted in a recent article by Martha Kumar, a respected political scientist at Towson University and Director of the nonpartisan White House Transition Project. As Professor Kumar recounts in her December 2009 article in Presidential Studies Quarterly, a threat to President Obama's inauguration brought together the incoming and outgoing senior national security personnel in the White House Situation Room the morning of his swearing-in.

In the hours before then-President-elect Obama was to take office, intelligence sources had indicated a possible plot to attack the National Mall during the ceremony. Thankfully, this threat proved a false alarm.

But, as Kumar explains, that Situation Room meeting between advisers to President Bush and President-elect Obama was a powerful example of why transition planning is so important.

In their meeting that morning, those on both sides worked well together as a team. This was so because they had met frequently in the weeks beforehand and had undergone joint emergency preparedness exercises together.

This occurred in no small part because the administration of former President George W. Bush made it a high priority. The former President and his White House staff deserve great credit for their work during their final months in office. By appointing his chief of staff, Joshua Bolton, as his transition point-person and convening a formal Transition Coordinating Council, President Bush created a successful model for a 21st century transfer of power.

Presidential inaugurations have always been moments of celebration for Americans, as we reaffirm the elective nature of our government. But they also represent moments of potential vulnerability.

In the earliest years of our history, that vulnerability inhabited the untested nature of our institutions. In an era when elected government was rare, the transition from one executive administration to another, particularly those between parties, brought fears of political or social unrest.

The primary example of such a transition remains that from the administration of John Adams to that of Thomas Jefferson, the first between opponents of different parties to contest the Presidency.

The peaceful nature of the 1801 transition came as a welcome surprise to some. The early American writer and novelist, Margaret Bayard Smith, whose brother, James Bayard, held the Senate seat from Delaware I now occupy, attended that inauguration. In a letter to her daughter, she described it thus:

I have this morning witnessed one of the most interesting

scenes a free people can ever witness. The changes of

administration, which in every government and in every age

have most generally been epochs of confusion, villainy, and

bloodshed, in this our happy country take place without any

species of distraction or disorder.

It is also notable that the greatest political crisis in our history occurred during the period between election day in November 1860 and Abraham Lincoln's inauguration the following March. The States that seceded did so amid a palpable uncertainty of national leadership.

Today, however, our concern is less with political stability than with national security.

During the Cold War, when fears of a power vacuum caused a renewed focus on continuity of government, Congress passed the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. It formalized several important elements of a successful transition, including public funds for transition staff, use of office space and equipment from the General Services Administration, reimbursement for travel by the President-elect and Vice President- elect, and their use of franked mail. It was amended in 1998 to permit the President-elect and Vice President-elect to supplement public transition funding with private donations and laid out requirements for disclosing their sources.

In 2004, Congress took an important step by including provisions in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act that allow transition personnel to request FBI background checks for potential appointees. This helps ensure that, on January 20 when the new President is sworn in, the most critical national security positions are immediately filled.

While some aspects of a successful Presidential transition process have been formalized by these acts, much of what has become necessary for a safe and smooth transition is still left to chance.

Fortune favors the prepared.

We were very lucky that the first transition of the post-September 11 era was carried out smoothly and with great preparation by both the outgoing and incoming administrations.

As I said a few moments ago, we owe great thanks to former President Bush for making this a priority and committing staff and resources to the process.

I also commend those who worked on both the Obama transition team as well as those from Senator McCain's campaign who engaged in some transition planning before election day.

Most importantly, our bill will go a long way in removing the stigma that has historically caused candidates to hide or even delay important transition planning until after election day.

We all recognize that the first priority of any Presidential campaign is to win the election. I certainly understand why, in the past, candidates have been wary of revealing that they have engaged in pre- election transition planning.

But we cannot afford to lose critical planning time because of fears that a candidate might be accused by a rival of ``measuring the drapes'' prematurely. We must also ensure that incumbents make the necessary preparations in case they lose bids for reelection.

Candidate transition planning is an act of responsibility, not presumptuousness.

With the security and domestic policy challenges we face today, it must become the norm for any major party nominee to begin making arrangements for a transition long before election day.

The bill my colleagues and I are introducing will both formalize many of the recent transition's successes and provide additional resources to help nominees begin their transition efforts earlier.

The Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010 encourages eligible Presidential candidates to accept transition office space and a broad array of services from the General Services Administration immediately after their nominating conventions.

Presently, candidates must wait until after election day before these resources become available. We know that this is too late, since both campaigns in 2008, and others in recent years, began informal transition planning months in advance.

Under our bill, salaries for candidates' transition staff, travel expenses, and allowances are funded exclusively by separate funds raised by their campaigns prior to the election.

Eligible candidates would be authorized to set up a separate account to support these activities. They would be able to transfer money from their campaign accounts into this transition account as well as raise funds separately.

Those candidates eligible to receive GSA-provided services and access to facilities include major party candidates. Third-party candidates would be eligible if they met the same criteria used by the Commission on Presidential Debates to participate in general election debates.

The GSA would distribute to candidates a report on modern transitions, including a bibliography of resources. This report would also be released to the public and posted on the Internet to educate the press and public on the importance of early transition planning.

Of course, under the bill services and information to candidates would be provided on an equal basis and without regard to political affiliation, and they would have to be used only for transition purposes.

Because a transition depends on the careful attention of those both preparing to assume power and those leaving it, our bill also authorizes appropriations for the outgoing administration to use in planning and coordinating transition activities across departments and agencies. It recommends adopting the Bush model of a transition coordinating council, staffed by both outgoing appointees and career managers from each agency. This council would meet regularly with representatives from the major nominees and update them on transition matters.

The bill also encourages the outgoing administration to prepare comprehensive briefing materials for incoming officials on a range of issues and potential areas of concern.

My colleagues and I approach this as pragmatists, and our goal is not to tie the hands of an administration. It is to inspire responsible preparation. This bill is not about telling an outgoing President what to do; rather, it lays out a strongly suggested model for how to do the right thing.

The only new requirement it sets for the outgoing President is the submission of two reports to Congress in the months before election day describing the activities being undertaken to prepare for the transfer of power.

But the model it suggests has worked and can serve as a blueprint for transitions to come.

My first job in politics after Joe Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 was to help him set up his Senate office in Delaware. My last job, before I was appointed to his Senate seat was as co-chair of his Vice Presidential Transition Team.

I can tell you from experience, setting up a Senate office is tough, but it is nothing like setting up a White House.

I was there in the room when then-President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden convened their first transition meetings right after election day. I cannot stress more forcefully how important it was in those meetings that the Obama-Biden transition had begun much earlier.

There simply is not enough time between November and January to get everything done that needs to be done.

These are the reasons why I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation to make our presidential transitions smoother and safer.

We cannot afford to leave something this important to chance.

Again, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, for his help in pulling this bill together as well as Senators Akaka and Lieberman for their support and leadership.

I look forward to working with them on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to move this measure through the Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill I am introducing today, the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010, bipartisan legislation that concerns both our national security and America's democratic institutions.

I am proud to be joined by my colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich in introducing this bill. I also want to thank our cosponsors, Chairman Akaka of the Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee as well as Chairman Lieberman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

I am appreciative of their support and for their input while drafting this bill.

I also would like to thank the Partnership for Public Service, a leading nonpartisan, nonprofit organization in the area of government accountability and reform. Their recent ``Ready to Govern'' report on the 2008-2009 transition made a number of important recommendations that are included in our bill.

As the strong, bipartisan support for this bill demonstrates, this is not a political issue.

After the attacks of September 11, we face new security challenges that require close cooperation between outgoing and incoming administrations, and the recent economic crisis underscores the importance of a smooth handoff on domestic policy as well.

This was highlighted in a recent article by Martha Kumar, a respected political scientist at Towson University and Director of the nonpartisan White House Transition Project. As Professor Kumar recounts in her December 2009 article in Presidential Studies Quarterly, a threat to President Obama's inauguration brought together the incoming and outgoing senior national security personnel in the White House Situation Room the morning of his swearing-in.

In the hours before then-President-elect Obama was to take office, intelligence sources had indicated a possible plot to attack the National Mall during the ceremony. Thankfully, this threat proved a false alarm.

But, as Kumar explains, that Situation Room meeting between advisers to President Bush and President-elect Obama was a powerful example of why transition planning is so important.

In their meeting that morning, those on both sides worked well together as a team. This was so because they had met frequently in the weeks beforehand and had undergone joint emergency preparedness exercises together.

This occurred in no small part because the administration of former President George W. Bush made it a high priority. The former President and his White House staff deserve great credit for their work during their final months in office. By appointing his chief of staff, Joshua Bolton, as his transition point-person and convening a formal Transition Coordinating Council, President Bush created a successful model for a 21st century transfer of power.

Presidential inaugurations have always been moments of celebration for Americans, as we reaffirm the elective nature of our government. But they also represent moments of potential vulnerability.

In the earliest years of our history, that vulnerability inhabited the untested nature of our institutions. In an era when elected government was rare, the transition from one executive administration to another, particularly those between parties, brought fears of political or social unrest.

The primary example of such a transition remains that from the administration of John Adams to that of Thomas Jefferson, the first between opponents of different parties to contest the Presidency.

The peaceful nature of the 1801 transition came as a welcome surprise to some. The early American writer and novelist, Margaret Bayard Smith, whose brother, James Bayard, held the Senate seat from Delaware I now occupy, attended that inauguration. In a letter to her daughter, she described it thus:

I have this morning witnessed one of the most interesting

scenes a free people can ever witness. The changes of

administration, which in every government and in every age

have most generally been epochs of confusion, villainy, and

bloodshed, in this our happy country take place without any

species of distraction or disorder.

It is also notable that the greatest political crisis in our history occurred during the period between election day in November 1860 and Abraham Lincoln's inauguration the following March. The States that seceded did so amid a palpable uncertainty of national leadership.

Today, however, our concern is less with political stability than with national security.

During the Cold War, when fears of a power vacuum caused a renewed focus on continuity of government, Congress passed the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. It formalized several important elements of a successful transition, including public funds for transition staff, use of office space and equipment from the General Services Administration, reimbursement for travel by the President-elect and Vice President- elect, and their use of franked mail. It was amended in 1998 to permit the President-elect and Vice President-elect to supplement public transition funding with private donations and laid out requirements for disclosing their sources.

In 2004, Congress took an important step by including provisions in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act that allow transition personnel to request FBI background checks for potential appointees. This helps ensure that, on January 20 when the new President is sworn in, the most critical national security positions are immediately filled.

While some aspects of a successful Presidential transition process have been formalized by these acts, much of what has become necessary for a safe and smooth transition is still left to chance.

Fortune favors the prepared.

We were very lucky that the first transition of the post-September 11 era was carried out smoothly and with great preparation by both the outgoing and incoming administrations.

As I said a few moments ago, we owe great thanks to former President Bush for making this a priority and committing staff and resources to the process.

I also commend those who worked on both the Obama transition team as well as those from Senator McCain's campaign who engaged in some transition planning before election day.

Most importantly, our bill will go a long way in removing the stigma that has historically caused candidates to hide or even delay important transition planning until after election day.

We all recognize that the first priority of any Presidential campaign is to win the election. I certainly understand why, in the past, candidates have been wary of revealing that they have engaged in pre- election transition planning.

But we cannot afford to lose critical planning time because of fears that a candidate might be accused by a rival of ``measuring the drapes'' prematurely. We must also ensure that incumbents make the necessary preparations in case they lose bids for reelection.

Candidate transition planning is an act of responsibility, not presumptuousness.

With the security and domestic policy challenges we face today, it must become the norm for any major party nominee to begin making arrangements for a transition long before election day.

The bill my colleagues and I are introducing will both formalize many of the recent transition's successes and provide additional resources to help nominees begin their transition efforts earlier.

The Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010 encourages eligible Presidential candidates to accept transition office space and a broad array of services from the General Services Administration immediately after their nominating conventions.

Presently, candidates must wait until after election day before these resources become available. We know that this is too late, since both campaigns in 2008, and others in recent years, began informal transition planning months in advance.

Under our bill, salaries for candidates' transition staff, travel expenses, and allowances are funded exclusively by separate funds raised by their campaigns prior to the election.

Eligible candidates would be authorized to set up a separate account to support these activities. They would be able to transfer money from their campaign accounts into this transition account as well as raise funds separately.

Those candidates eligible to receive GSA-provided services and access to facilities include major party candidates. Third-party candidates would be eligible if they met the same criteria used by the Commission on Presidential Debates to participate in general election debates.

The GSA would distribute to candidates a report on modern transitions, including a bibliography of resources. This report would also be released to the public and posted on the Internet to educate the press and public on the importance of early transition planning.

Of course, under the bill services and information to candidates would be provided on an equal basis and without regard to political affiliation, and they would have to be used only for transition purposes.

Because a transition depends on the careful attention of those both preparing to assume power and those leaving it, our bill also authorizes appropriations for the outgoing administration to use in planning and coordinating transition activities across departments and agencies. It recommends adopting the Bush model of a transition coordinating council, staffed by both outgoing appointees and career managers from each agency. This council would meet regularly with representatives from the major nominees and update them on transition matters.

The bill also encourages the outgoing administration to prepare comprehensive briefing materials for incoming officials on a range of issues and potential areas of concern.

My colleagues and I approach this as pragmatists, and our goal is not to tie the hands of an administration. It is to inspire responsible preparation. This bill is not about telling an outgoing President what to do; rather, it lays out a strongly suggested model for how to do the right thing.

The only new requirement it sets for the outgoing President is the submission of two reports to Congress in the months before election day describing the activities being undertaken to prepare for the transfer of power.

But the model it suggests has worked and can serve as a blueprint for transitions to come.

My first job in politics after Joe Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 was to help him set up his Senate office in Delaware. My last job, before I was appointed to his Senate seat was as co-chair of his Vice Presidential Transition Team.

I can tell you from experience, setting up a Senate office is tough, but it is nothing like setting up a White House.

I was there in the room when then-President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden convened their first transition meetings right after election day. I cannot stress more forcefully how important it was in those meetings that the Obama-Biden transition had begun much earlier.

There simply is not enough time between November and January to get everything done that needs to be done.

These are the reasons why I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation to make our presidential transitions smoother and safer.

We cannot afford to leave something this important to chance.

Again, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, for his help in pulling this bill together as well as Senators Akaka and Lieberman for their support and leadership.

I look forward to working with them on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to move this measure through the Congress.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today to discuss President Obama's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget and the proposed path forward for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration which we all know as NASA. Even though Colorado doesn't have a NASA facility, this proposed budget and the major changes to NASA's direction included in it have major implications for thousands of Coloradans. I was the chairman on the House side of the Space Subcommittee and I know what space means to Colorado and I know what it means to our Nation.

Yesterday, Senator Bennet and I had the opportunity to meet with former General and now NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden to urge him to reevaluate the decision included in the President's budget request for NASA to terminate the Constellation Program. This program is developing the successor to the retiring space shuttle known as the Orion capsule and Ares rocket. Those two technologies will be teamed up in the planning that was brought together.

We had a frank and productive discussion with Administrator Bolden. Senator Bennet and I impressed upon him the importance of this program--especially the development of the Orion capsule--to thousands of jobs in Colorado and, frankly, to America's leadership more broadly in space. General Bolden assured us that he wants to be flexible and work with Congress on this NASA budget and that he is committed to human space flight. In other words, the President's budget request is the beginning of a long process, and I was pleased to hear General Bolden is set on working with Congress to chart a future course for NASA and America's leadership in space. I look forward to working with General Bolden as this unfolds.

If I might, I will take a few moments to describe the aerospace community in Colorado. Although we don't host a NASA facility, Colorado has the second largest aerospace economy in the Nation, behind only California. We have a talented and educated workforce and our colleges and universities have deep ties to NASA, private aerospace companies, and Federal research laboratories. We have many businesses that partner with NASA and the military to provide launch services and satellite development as well as a number of startup companies that are pushing the boundaries of what is possible in privately financed access to space. We can also in Colorado boast of the two key military space commands--NORAD and the Air Force Space Command--and three Air Force bases with strong space missions: Buckley, Peterson, and Schriever.

In short, Colorado's aerospace enterprise brings together the government and commercial sectors as well as the military and civil sectors. For all of these reasons, I pay close attention to NASA and to the administration's vision for the agency, and the significant changes in the President's fiscal 2011 budget request demand an especially hard look. I know many of my Senate colleagues feel the same way.

I have been reviewing the President's NASA budget since it was released in February and, as I noted earlier, Senator Bennet and I shared our concerns with General Bolden yesterday.

Let me start by saying there is much to like in the President's budget. First, it supports an extension of the International Space Station until 2020 and possibly beyond. Completing this station has been a long time coming and I am pleased to see that this administration's commitment to fully utilizing it past the previous end date of 2015.

Second, the budget includes important new investments in science and aeronautics research. My goal is to balance each of NASA's four mission priorities: earth science, space science, space exploration, and aeronautics. The President's request for nonexploration priorities represented a farsighted investment that should pay large dividends.

Also, the budget includes an additional $6 billion over 5 years, which is especially notable at a time when many agencies are seeing flat or declining budgets. Much of this investment will go toward developing transformative technologies and propulsion systems that will help NASA cross into new frontiers.

However, the elephant in the room is understandably the proposed cancellation of the Constellation Program, which is to be supplanted by commercial development of human space flight. A purely commercial approach to human space flight may be the future, but I am concerned that it also runs the risk of diminishing American leadership in space. If that happens, that would be a great shame. It would be penny wise, but I fear it would be pound foolish. Let me be frank. This move would hit Colorado especially hard. Well over 1,000 Coloradans work directly on one aspect or another of Constellation. In addition, the Jefferson County Economic Council estimates that work on Constellation supports nearly 4,000 additional Colorado jobs and $300 million worth of economic activity in the Metro Denver area. As the Presiding Officer can imagine, those kinds of numbers give me real pause. They are especially worrisome in today's economic conditions.

The budget proposal leaves broader questions unanswered as well. After the planned retirement of the space shuttle next year, the United States will be without the capacity to launch humans into space, including to the International Space Station. At that point, we will be forced to purchase access to space on Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Constellation was supposed to minimize the gap in our ability to access Low Earth Orbit, otherwise known as LEO, and now the President is proposing to rely on the commercial sector to minimize the gap instead.

I strongly support development of commercial launch capabilities and space services, and I look forward to the day when the commercial sector can provide these services for NASA to focus on development of new exploration technologies and human missions beyond Low Earth Orbit.

I am confident that day will come. However, I have not seen sufficient proof from the administration that day is close at hand. The commercial sector has yet to prove it can safely put a human into orbit.

Should the commercial sector fail to deliver human access to space, America will be reliant on Russian-procured launch services to the space station and LEO for the foreseeable future. In my opinion, that is an unacceptable position for our Nation.

The United States and Russia have enjoyed a very productive partnership in space. It has been good for our country and good for space exploration. We should cooperate and share resources wherever possible. But I am concerned about what an indefinite reliance on Russian launch services will mean for our leadership in space.

Cancelling Constellation has other important implications for our national security. NASA is a prime customer for the U.S. space launch industrial base, which we rely on to sustain our strategic deterrence mission and to ensure access to space. These issues are especially important to me, as I sit on the Armed Services Committee.

Department of Defense officials have stated that Constellation's cancellation could increase the current price of propulsion systems for our launch vehicles. The Department of Defense is looking at the cost impacts, but we will not have clear answers until this summer. Congress needs this information before deciding whether to approve the President's budget request.

I do not want to appear naive about the problems this administration faced in crafting a NASA budget and direction for the future. The Constellation Program, as currently resourced, is clearly ``unsustainable,'' in the words of the Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee--more commonly known as the Augustine Committee. The committee went on to say that we are ``perpetrating the perilous practice of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources.'' That is simply not a recipe for U.S. leadership in space either.

In the midst of crafting this budget for NASA, the administration also faced the worst economic conditions in a generation. I can appreciate the difficulty of designing a sustainable plan for NASA with today's fiscal constraints.

We cannot and should not ask NASA to do more with less. Transferring routine space operations to the commercial sector appears to be an attractive, potentially money-saving alternative.

I know I am not alone in believing that Congress should not support this budget based on what we know now. Terminating Constellation does not make sense. But we should be open to restructuring the program in a way that preserves American leadership in space and protects jobs.

Madam President, where do we go from here? The President will be speaking later this week in Florida. It will be his first set of comments on the proposed NASA budget. I appreciate the fact that the President is tackling the problems with Constellation head on. However, he needs to explain his plan better.

I hope the President will begin to answer the questions that I and many of my colleagues in Congress have asked. I hope he will begin to articulate a plan for NASA that is, in the words of the Augustine Committee, ``worthy of a great nation.'' I do not believe we are there yet, but we will get there.

One of the lessons I learned as a mountaineer came on the 10th day of what was supposed to be a 7-day climb of Mount McKinley. At that critical moment in our climb, I learned that when you are all the way in, you will find a way. I believe the American people are all the way in with NASA. I know this Congress is.

NASA's mission of exploration resonates with each of us. That mission transcends programs, budgets, and politics. It has endured the end of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, and it will soon endure the end of the space shuttle.

Unfortunately, the history of NASA is littered with canceled programs with little to show for them. I don't want to see the same happen with Constellation, nor do I want to continue on an unsustainable course.

The challenge before us is to ensure that NASA's programs and budgets are worthy of its mission.

Over the coming weeks and months, I will be working with my colleagues in Congress and the administration to find the right way to further NASA's mission.

I believe there is a sweet spot to be found that includes many of the positive aspects of the President's proposal. But the American people deserve answers on the President's vision for our Nation's leadership in human space travel.

While some changes need to be made, I believe the Constellation Program has advanced an important mission. It would be highly disappointing to leave behind the significant investments we have made in Constellation without anything to show for them.

We will find a budget that works for NASA, for Congress, and for Colorado. We have to because we are in all the way.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.