A bill to amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes.

Madam President, I want to share some thoughts this morning and to report to our colleagues on the analysis done by the Congressional Budget Office of the President's budget he has submitted to us and asked that we adopt.

The budget has been roundly criticized as in no way getting us off this unsustainable path, and allowing the country to continue to head toward a financial abyss. Expert after expert, witness after witness before the Budget Committee--on which I am the ranking Republican Member--has testified to the danger we face and the need for us to take action. The Congressional Budget Office, in sum, concludes that the very insufficient reforms contained in the President's budget are more insufficient than the President has said, when properly analyzed. It is a very firm and severe rebuke to the President and his team of analysts who presented it to us. It is not good.

I believe it is probably the most erroneous budget ever submitted to Congress, in changing the numbers by $2.3 trillion in debt. In other words, the Congressional Budget Office says the budget submitted by the President, which was supposed to add to the debt some $13 trillion or so, is actually going to add $2 trillion more to the debt over 10 years, more than doubling the national debt. This is a very serious matter.

The budget presentation to the Congress continues a policy by this administration to minimize the danger of the debt crisis we face. It has been a sophisticated, long-term, continuous effort to not only say that cuts are too severe, too extreme--as the talking points go--and that, indeed, this President has things under control; that the debt crisis is not real, and we don't have to take firm action. The President does not look people in the eye and explain the true situation we are facing.

Indeed, this is the rhetoric they have used. The President has used this language; Jack Lew, his Director of the Office of Management and Budget, has used this language. They claim the budget they submitted calls on us to ``live within our means.'' His budget causes us to live within our means. They also have used this phrase, more than once: ``It only spends money that we have each year.'' Also they say that their budget ``does not add more to the debt.'' At a press conference about this, the press secretary to the White House was asked: Do you stand by these statements? What did he say? Absolutely. And when Budget Director Lew came before the Budget Committee, and I asked him about it, he stands by these statements. He didn't acknowledge they are in any way in error.

If we are going to have reform in America, if we are going to do something about the debt crisis this Nation faces, we have to be honest with one another. We have to deal honestly with the grave challenges we face. We can't be in denial. We can't continue to say we are living within our means and that we are not going to add more to our debt.

Why do I say that? Well, the President's own budget said the deficits would surge, would continue to be out there every single year, with the lowest single deficit in 10 years, according to his budget, to be $600 billion and going up in the outyears to almost $800 billion.

What does CBO say about all of this? This is what they told us after they analyzed the President's budget. Let me explain what happens. The President submits a budget to the Congress. We have our own Congressional Budget Office, and they analyze what the President proposes. They then give us a report on it and say what it means, if adopted; how it would impact our economy, how it would impact our debt, how it would impact the financing of our government. So what does CBO say? It says the President's debt-doubling budget adds more to the debt than the President claims. The score reveals the President's budget never once produces a deficit of less than $748 billion, and climbs to a deficit in the tenth year of $1.2 trillion--one thousand two hundred billion dollars.

I have been saying the lowest budget was $600 billion because that is what the President's own numbers said in the document he sent to us, but CBO says no. The CBO Director and his team, for the most part, were in place when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. They are a nonpartisan group that tries to give honest numbers and do honest work. They are certainly not a Republican organization. They say the actual number was not going to be a $600 billion low annual deficit but that the lowest deficit would be $748 billion, increasing to $1.2 trillion.

You see, this is why the experts say we are on an unsustainable path. We cannot continue. How much is $1.2 trillion? Well, the highest deficit President Bush ever had was $450 billion, I believe, give or take. That was way too high, and he was roundly criticized for that. But this is three times that in the tenth year. This year, we are going to have a $1.6 trillion, $1.5 trillion deficit. In this fiscal year we will have, for the third consecutive time, a trillion dollar deficit. These are deficits the likes of which the Nation has never seen before and cannot sustain. It puts us on a path to financial instability and danger. It is a path we must get off. We can do so, but it is going to take some will. We are going to have to do some of the same things our cities and counties are doing.

Also, the CBO said that, using gimmicks, the President's budget concealed a total of $2.3 trillion in deficit spending and $1.7 trillion in increases of gross debt for the country. The debt to GDP reaches 116 percent in the 10th year.

Let's talk about that. Why is that important? Professors Rogoff and Reinhart, who testified before our committee, have written a very significant and highly regarded book. Their book, ``This Time It's Different,'' says that from a study of sovereign nations all over the world, when their debt reaches 100 percent of GDP, the economy is pulled down. It has a depressing effect on their economy. The economy will grow on average about 1 percent less than it would have grown otherwise, which is huge.

When you are talking about economic growth of 2, 3, 4 percent, to have a 1-percent reduction is a major drain on our economic growth, and growth is so critical for job creation and actually tax revenue to fund our government and get us out of the debt we are in. You cannot borrow your way out of debt. The deeper you get into debt, the more it pulls down the vitality and growth potential of your economy. We have to get off this path.

CBO says in the 10th year it will be 116. Senator Conrad, the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, is very worried about this number. He

had a chart about it at our hearing recently. He showed that this year for the first time we will go over 100 percent of GDP in national debt. It is about 5 percent now, and we will go over 100 percent and will stay over it under the President's budget. Experts tell me this is unsustainable. Something bad will happen to us.

In addition, when Secretary of Treasury Geithner appeared before our committee, he acknowledged the Rogoff and Reinhart analysis. He acknowledged that this high level of debt will weaken the growth in our economy, and he added this: This level of debt creates a greater potential for an economic kickback, an economic catastrophe; another recession could occur as a result of these high debts.

CBO analysis reveals a number of other things that are disturbing because they are so plainly false, so plainly gimmicky, and so plainly designed to mislead the American people about the true nature of this budget that it, again, raises credibility questions about the White House and how they are explaining the situation we are in to the American people. They seem to be denying we are in a crisis.

For example, this budget submitted by the White House assumes there will be $315 billion for what we refer to as the doc fix in the final 8 years of this 10-year budget. But there is no source of income for that. They do not propose a tax increase. They do not propose any income that would be there. The CBO says: You cannot just assume money is going to appear when there is no source for this money. It is a manipulation of the numbers to try to hide the fact that there are no moneys available to pay the doctors the kind of income they need to continue to treat Medicare patients. If we do not do something, physicians will have their pay cut 20-percent-plus for treating Medicare patients. That is not healthy. It cannot be sustained. Physicians will not work with another 20 percent cut. They get paid less for Medicare than any other source of work they do unless it is the Federal Medicaid Program. CBO called them on it and said: No, you cannot score income when you show no source of that income.

What about transportation? There is a major increase proposed for spending on transportation next year, and their budget just assumes there will be a $328 billion income surge for transportation. It is called a transportation tax, but we are told it will not be a gas tax. I have referred to it as the ``not-gas-tax tax'' because all we know about this tax is they say it will not be a gas tax. They are talking about a $328 billion tax increase of some kind but no proposal where it would be, how it would be imposed, whether Congress would ever vote for it or not. They are not likely to vote for it, I have to tell you. CBO says that is phantom money. You need a better plan than that because otherwise your budget is just smoke and mirrors on that subject.

Remember, when we borrow money, we pay interest. The interest we paid last year was $200 billion. As the debt goes up and increases, although interest rates are very low now, they are going to increase some. According to CBO's analysis, with the debt more than doubling in the next 10 years under the budget the President has submitted to us, the annual interest is over $900 billion. That is about one-fourth of what the entire government spends today. We spend about $3.8 trillion. This is almost $1 trillion in interest in 1 year. Frankly, I think CBO's estimate of what the interest rates are going to be on our debt are probably low.

It is this kind of debt, where your debt is over 100 percent GDP, that puts you in a position where you could have a debt crisis kicking us back into another recession.

What we have to have--from the President and from our Democratic leadership here in the Senate--is an honest evaluation of where we are. The President needs to look the American people in the eye and say: We are not on a course that we can sustain. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke told us in January that we are on an unsustainable path. We have to get off it. About these numbers that project out here for 10 years, the doubling of the debt, Mr. Bernanke said: We are not going to get there because we will have a debt crisis before we get there, and there will be much, much harder times getting our finances in order than if we act today to get them in order. He said we wouldn't get there with these projections; they are too severe, too damaging to our economy.

Madam President, what time is left on this side?

If some of my colleagues appear, I will be glad to yield the floor, but I will share a few more thoughts.

The President's budget does some other gimmicky things. He claims he has a 5-year freeze on nondefense discretionary spending. He told the American people that in the State of the Union Address. We have looked at those numbers, and it appears pretty clear that there is a 5-percent increase in the discretionary spending next year. How do they accomplish that? They reclassify all discretionary transportation funding as mandatory spending and say it is not discretionary. They just declare it is mandatory spending, and they say they have reduced discretionary spending by $7 billion. What kind of hokum is that? This is not worthy of the President of the United States and the Office of Management and Budget, coming here with a gimmick like that--just redefine discretionary spending and say it is there and say: I have a freeze in discretionary spending.

What else did they do? They hide another $9 billion in the reverse of that, in one-time mandatory savings. Actually, they use it in the discretionary account, but they do not count it as increased spending. That is $9 billion. And the President's proposed spending levels for next year will be even further out of whack as a freeze because this Congress is going to reduce the spending this year, hopefully by the full $61 billion the House has asked that we reduce it.

You say: Mr. Sessions, this is all partisan bickering. But it is not partisan bickering. We have bipartisan recognition in this Senate from Senator after Senator, Democrats as well as Republicans, who understand we are on an unsustainable course, and they know we need to get off this course. But I have to be critical about the President because he is not telling the American people the severity of the challenge we have and he is not proposing a plan that will actually fix it, but actually he is proposing a plan that will make it worse. This is a crisis. We have to confront this problem.

The President is going to have to move from denial to reality, to the real world, and help us develop a plan that contains spending in America just like is happening all over this country. Governor Cuomo is talking about substantial reductions in spending in New York, as is Governor Christie in New Jersey and Governor Brown in California.

I just saw my friend John McMillan, the head of agriculture and industry in the State of Alabama. He has 200 employees. He said they are going to have to reduce 60. That is almost one-third of the employees of his department. Do you think the department of agriculture and the industries of Alabama will cease to exist? I don't think so. I bet Mr. McMillan will figure out some way to perform most of the duties in his office. But he doesn't have the money, and when you don't have the money, you have to make tough decisions.

The American people understand this. When they don't have money, they don't spend. If they spend when they don't have money, they know they are taking a risk and they know it can't continue long. But this Congress does not get it. We are in a denial mode. We think we can just continue to spend forever, and we have the majority leader in the Senate whining about losing money for a cowboy poetry festival in Nevada. Give me a break. When you don't have money, you have to make decisions. That is just the plain fact.

What about next year's budget that the President proposes? The education budget next year is proposed to get an 11-percent increase over the past 2 years, which have had surging increases. Indeed, most Americans probably do not know that in this time of record deficits, over $1 trillion deficits, the last 3 years, the discretionary accounts--nondefense discretionary spending--increased 24 percent. And

next year? They want another 11 percent for education, another 9.5 percent for the Energy Department, another huge increase for transportation--the base, I believe, is over 10 percent but, including the phantom revenue, they will see around a 60 percent increase.

Under the President's request, the State Department is demanding and expecting to get over a 10-percent increase in spending. And inflation is 2 percent or less? How can we do this? The American people know this is not realistic. They know it is dangerous, and they want us to do something about it.

Frankly, I think that had something to do with the elections last fall. I think the American people were sending a message to a blind Congress that they expected us to do better on spending. Are we getting the message? We are proposing huge increases in spending next year, five times the rate of inflation in America, and we claim that is somehow frugal and living within our means. When the lowest single deficit over the next 10 years is projected to be $740-plus billion, that is unacceptable.

We have to be careful about what we say about our economy. We have to keep our economy moving forward. It is struggling. It is moving. We are having some good growth. We want to see that growth continue and expand.

The job situation is not good. We need to have at least 150,000 to 200,000 new jobs a month to stay level. That is about where we have been, 150,000 or 200,000 jobs. That is basically keeping us level. We need more job growth than that. It is better having some jobs being added than none, I acknowledge that, but it is not as strong as we need it to be.

One reason we are not having growth, as Professors Rogoff and Reinhart have told us, is the debt pulling down our economy. It is putting a cloud over our economy. The whole world is watching the United States. Are we going to go off the cliff or will this Congress rise up and put us on a path to sound fiscal policy that creates confidence in our financial situation; creates investment, growth, and jobs. That is the road we need to be on. It will be a tougher road. We will have to make some hard decisions about spending and which programs are going to get money and which ones aren't. Maybe all of them will have to take some sort of cut, but we can do that. We will get the country on the right track, and America is not going to fall into the ocean if we make some reductions in spending.

I will just point out that it is difficult to do that when we are in a political world, according to the New York Times, where anybody who proposes to reduce spending is called an extremist. Senator Schumer started that. He got caught on a phone call saying we should use the word ``extremist.'' Cut $61 billion out of $3,800 billion in expenditures; that is what the House has sent over here to us, a proposal that we reduce spending, under the continuing resolution, by September 30, by $61 billion out of a total of $3,800 billion the Federal Government spends.

This is extreme, we are told, and the government is going to sink into the ocean, and we cannot survive with these kind of reductions. So they had a meeting. They all were right on message, according to the New York Times. ``We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,'' said Mrs. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny funding for Planned Parenthood.

Another Senator said, referring to the House Republicans as ``right wing extremist friends''--he is a real nice Senator. He did not want to be too harsh, so he called them ``right wing extremist friends.'' That is better than not calling them friends, I suppose.

Another Senator decried Mr. Boehner as ``giving in to the extremes of his party.'' Another closed by speaking of the ``relatively small group of ideologues who are an anchor dragging down the budget-negotiating process.''

Give me a break. $61 billion. If we cannot do that, what does the world think about us? Did we really get a message from this election? Did we really understand that we are challenged now; that this is our time in history to face up to the facts that we are on an unsustainable fiscal course that will lead us, as Mr. Bernanke said, to economic disaster long before these projections come to a conclusion?

We cannot continue on this course. We have to get off this course. We owe it to every working American not to put this country back into another recession. The truth is, we can do these reductions in spending. This government is not going to sink into the ocean. We are going to continue to serve the American people. If we do it, we will get on the right path, and this economy can continue to grow knowing that we have gotten our fiscal house in order.

It is not that hard. I urge my colleagues to do so. Let's not give up on the $61 billion total reduction in spending the House has asked us to meet. Let's do it, and let's be proud of it. Let's know then that we have done something that will amount to a real change in the debt trajectory we are on.

We have calculated it. My budget staff has looked at the numbers. A $61 billion reduction in baseline spending--which is what they are proposing--over 10 years will save $860 billion. It will reduce the debt of America by almost $1 trillion. We need to do more of those kinds of things in the months ahead. If we do so, we can change the trajectory we are on.

So I urge my colleagues, do not leave here talking about splitting the baby and just seeing how little we can reduce spending. Let's go on and accept the House number. Let's embrace it. Let's make a decision to get our finances in order just like cities and counties and families are doing all over the country.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011, as well as the Senate resolution to create an expedited confirmation process for some part-time boards and commissions.

I want to commend Senators Schumer and Alexander for their work on this issue and to express my appreciation for all the members of the nomination reform working group--Senators Reid, McConnell, and Lieberman. I was pleased to be a part of what has truly been a bipartisan effort.

The Constitution, in the Appointments Clause, makes the appointment of senior Federal executive officers a joint responsibility of the President and the Senate. The President determines who, in his view, is the best qualified to serve in the most senior and critical positions across the executive branch of our Government. It also requires that we, the Senate, exercise our independent judgment and experience to determine if nominees have the necessary qualifications and character to serve our Nation in these important positions of public trust.

The confirmation process must be thorough enough for the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional duty, but it should not be so onerous as to deter qualified people from public service.

National security reasons also compel attention to this problem. The National Journal has noted that ``[p]eriods of political transition are, by their very nature, chaotic'' and that ``terrorists strike when they believe governments will be caught off guard.''

Both the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the attacks on September 11th, 2001, occurred within eight months of a change in presidential administrations. And in March 2004, just three days before Spain's national elections, al Qaeda-linked terrorists bombed Madrid commuter trains.

The 9/11 Commission found that ``[a]t the sub-cabinet level, there were significant delays in the confirmation of key officials, particularly at the Department of Defense,'' in 2001. It was not until six months after President Bush took office that he had his national security team in place.

Countless studies have been written and many experts have opined on how to improve the nomination and confirmation process--from the Brownlow Commission in 1937 to the 9/11 Commission in 2004.

This is also an issue that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has been working to address for a long time. For example, in 2001, when Senator Fred Thompson chaired the Committee, we held two hearings focusing on the state of the Presidential appointment process. As a result of these hearings, the Committee reported out legislation to address concerns that were raised. A few of the provisions of this bill would later be included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

But more work remains to be done. On March 2nd of this year, the Committee held another hearing to review the nomination process. The witnesses echoed the concerns that have been raised over the years by the many commissions and that still remain unaddressed.

Based upon our review, there are a few areas in particular where improvements should be made. The first is to reduce the sheer number of positions subject to Senate confirmation.

In this regard, the National Commission on the Public Service, commonly known as the Volcker Commission, gathered some very illuminating statistics. When President Kennedy came to office, he had 286 positions to fill with the titles of Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and Administrator. By the end of the Clinton Administration, there were 914 positions with these titles.

Today, according to the Congressional Research Service, CRS, there are more than 1,200 positions appointed by the President that require the advice and consent of the Senate.

The large number of positions requiring confirmation leads to long delays in selecting, vetting, and nominating these appointees. Consequently, administrations can go for months without key officials in many agencies. And when political appointees are finally in place, their median tenure is only about two and a half years.

A second area ripe for reform is to develop a consistent, common form for the nominees to complete in order to streamline the process, save time, and increase accuracy. This also would reduce the cost and burden on nominees.

The White House, Office of Government Ethics, and the Senate need to work together to reconcile the various questions that are asked of nominees. Currently, nominees will often find themselves repeating variations of, or even the exact same, response over and over.

In this regard, I believe Clay Johnson, the former head of Presidential Personnel from 2001 to 2003, made an excellent point. He noted that there is a thick file in the White House ``with every possible piece of relevant information on that person and yet none of that is made available to the Senate.''

A consistent, common form, which a nominee can respond to online, would help to facilitate the flow of information so the Senate can begin its review of the nomination earlier.

Finally, the executive branch also needs to review its own role and responsibilities in the process.

Specifically, the White House should review its background investigation requirements. The extent of the investigation should be tailored to the position. A person nominated to a non-national security-related position should not have to undergo the same detailed FBI background investigation as a nominee to a national security- related position, such as the Secretary of Homeland Security. In addition, the process should make some allowance for people who already have undergone the FBI full-field investigation for a different Senate- confirmed position. Reform of this process would help speed up the review of nominees and aid in the task of recruiting talented people for public service.

It also is the White House's responsibility to ensure that the Office of Presidential Personnel has the appropriate staffing level to meet the demands of a new administration.

As Mr. Johnson noted at our March 2nd hearing, ``[a] new administration has never had the capacity in the first six months to nominate persons for more than 250 cabinet and subcabinet positions, let alone 400 positions, which government reform individuals and groups suggest a new administration should be able to do.''

If these areas can be reformed, substantial time will be saved, and key leadership posts at our federal agencies will not be vacant for nearly as long.

Now, during this mid-term period, two years away from a Presidential election, we have the opportunity to streamline the executive branch nominations process. This can help ensure that the next presidential transition will be as smooth as possible, thwarting the terrorists' belief that they will be able to ``catch us off guard.''

The Schumer-Alexander bill and Senate Resolution go a long way to addressing the concerns that I have highlighted.

The bill will make more than 200 positions direct Presidential Appointments that would no longer require Senate confirmation. Many of these positions have little or no policy role, such as the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department of Commerce, or are internal management or administrative positions, such as chief financial officers or assistant secretaries for public affairs.

By not requiring Senate confirmation, it will allow these positions be filled at a much faster pace and free up Senate resources to focus on more significant nominees.

The Senate resolution proposes that more than 240 positions on part- time boards or commissions go through a new ``expedited'' confirmation process. These positions will still require the nominee to respond to all committee questionnaires and still provide for the opportunity for closer scrutiny of the nominee, if warranted.

This retains the authority of the Senate over these positions, but streamlines the process, lessening the burden on the Senate for routine, non-controversial nominations and providing for a faster road to confirmation as well.

While we must deliver on our duty to provide advice and consent, reforms are needed to improve the effective operation of government. We all want the most qualified people to serve the President and the Nation. We should, therefore, ensure that the process is not unnecessarily burdensome and that key leadership posts do not go unfilled for long stretches of time. Most of all, we need to reform the process so that good people, whose talents and energy we need, do not become so discouraged that they give up their goal of serving the public.

I am pleased to join Senators Schumer and Alexander as a cosponsor of this legislation and the Senate resolution, both of which will help us attract well-qualified people to public service.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Women's History Museum Act of 2011, a bill that would clear the way to locate a long-overdue historical and educational resource in our nation's capital city. I appreciate the co-sponsorship today from 16 of my colleagues: Senators Mikulski, Boxer, Hutchison, Murray, Snowe, Landrieu, Stabenow, Cantwell, Murkowski, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Lieberman, Akaka, Pryor, Merkley, and Begich.

American women have made invaluable contributions to our country in such diverse fields as government, business, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military. A museum recognizing the contributions of American women is long overdue.

A Presidential commission on commemorating women in American history concluded that, ``Efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital.''

That report was issued in 1999. Over a decade later, although Congress has made commendable provisions for the National Museum for African American History and Culture, the National Law Enforcement Museum, and the National Museum of the American Indian, there is still no institution in the capital region dedicated to women's roles in our country's history.

It is important to note that taxpayers will not shoulder the funding of this project. The proposed legislation calls for no new federal program and no new claims on the budget. The bill would simply direct the General Services Administration to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with the National Women's History Museum, Inc. to establish a museum on a tract of land near the Smithsonian Museums located at 12th Street, SW., and Independence Avenue, SW.

In fact, the Museum would be putting dollars in the federal government's pocket in order to occupy this space because the transaction would be at a fair-market value for the land. This bill would be a win-win for the taxpayers and the Museum.

The National Women's History Museum is a non-profit, non-partisan, educational institution based in the District of Columbia. Its mission is to research and present the historic contributions that women have made to all aspects of human endeavor, and to present the contributions that women have made to the nation in their various roles in family, the economy, and society.

This museum would help ensure that future generations understand what we owe to the many generations of American women who have helped build, sustain, and advance our society. They deserve a building to present the stories of pioneering women like abolitionist Harriet Tubman, founder of the Girl Scouts Juliette Gordon Low, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and astronaut Sally Ride.

That women's roll of honor would also include a legendary predecessor in the Senate seat I now hold: the late Senator Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman nominated for President of the United States by a major political party, and the first woman elected to both houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1940, won election to the Senate in 1948, and enjoyed bipartisan respect over her long career for her independence, integrity, wisdom, and courage. She remains my role model and, through the example of her public service, an exemplar of the virtues that would be honored in the National Women's History Museum.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their past support of this effort, and urge them to renew that support for this bill.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation of great importance to my state, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2011. This bill would ensure parity in federal policy as it relates to the Native Hawaiian people. It would put them on equal footing with American Indians and Alaska Natives. I have sponsored this common-sense legislation since the 106th Congress.

Last December, I spoke here on the Senate floor to reaffirm my commitment to enact this legislation. I made it clear then to my colleagues and my constituents that I would be reintroducing this legislation in the 112th Congress. I am moving forward with the legislation that was reported out of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in the 111th Congress.

Throughout my Senate career, I have been a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs. I have worked diligently with my colleagues on the Committee to champion legislation to improve conditions for our Native communities across the United States. At the beginning of the 112th Congress, I became the Chairman of this Committee. I look forward to working on the many pressing issues for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people will be a top priority.

In 1993, I sponsored a measure commonly known as the Apology Resolution. This resolution was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It outlined the history--prior to--and following the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including the involvement in the overthrow by agents of the United States. In the resolution, the United States apologized for its involvement--and acknowledged the ramifications of the overthrow. It committed to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people.

However, additional Congressional action is needed.

My legislation allows us to take the necessary next step in the reconciliation process. The bill does three things. First, it authorizes an office in the Department of the Interior to serve as a liaison between Native Hawaiians and the United States. Second, it forms an interagency task force chaired by the Departments of Justice and Interior, and composed of officials from federal agencies that administer programs and services impacting Native Hawaiians. Third, it authorizes a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian government for the purposes of a federally-recognized government-to- government relationship. Once the Native Hawaiian government is recognized, an inclusive democratic negotiations process representing both Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians would be established. There are many checks and balances in this process. Any agreements reached would still require the legislative approval of the State and Federal governments.

Opponents have spread misinformation about the bill. Let me be clear on some things that this bill does not do. My bill will not allow for gaming. It does not allow for Hawaii to secede from the United States. It does not allow for private land to be taken. It does not create a reservation in Hawaii.

What this bill does do is allow the people of Hawaii to come together and address issues arising from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii more than 118 years ago.

It is time to move forward with this legislation. To date, there have been a total of 12 Congressional hearings, including 5 joint hearings in Hawaii held by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Natural Resources Committee. Our colleagues in the House have passed versions of this bill three times. We, however, have never had the opportunity to openly debate this bill on its merits in the Senate. We have a strong bill that is supported by Native communities across the United States, by the State of Hawaii, and by the Obama Administration.

Last week, I met with officials and community leaders in the state of Hawaii to share my intention to reintroduce this legislation. I received widespread support. This support was not surprising. A poll conducted by the Honolulu Advertiser in May of last year reported that 66 percent of the people of Hawaii support Federal recognition for Native Hawaiians. And 82 percent of Native Hawaiians polled support Federal recognition.

My efforts have the support of the National Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and groups throughout the Native Hawaiian community including the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, the Native Hawaiian Bar Association, the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, and two state agencies which represent the interests of the Native Hawaiian people, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. I have also received support from national organizations such as the American Bar Association, and from President Obama, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Interior.

I encourage all of my colleagues to stand with me and support this legislation. I welcome any of my colleagues with concerns to speak with me so I can explain how important this bill is for the people of Hawaii. The people of Hawaii have waited for far too long. America has a history of righting past wrongs. The United States has federally recognized government-to-government relationships with 565 tribes across our country. It is time to extend this policy to the Native Hawaiians.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a technical amendment to the Act of June 18, 1934, the Indian Reorganization Act.

Trust land is essential to a tribe's ability to exercise their inherent sovereignty. It allows Tribal Nations to protect their historic, cultural and religious ties to the lands where their ancestors lived. Trust lands are also vital to tribal economic development and self-government as tribes provide a wide range of governmental services to their members including, running schools, community centers, health clinics, law enforcement and numerous other social and governmental services.

Federal Indian policy regarding tribal lands has not always been favorable to the Tribal governments and individuals. The General Allotment Act of 1887 led to land losses of more than 100 million acres of tribal homelands. Those land losses had a devastating effect on the tribal communities, institutions and economies that relied on their homelands. Seeking to address the consequences of that ill-advised policy, Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act in 1934.

This act was intended to reverse the prior federal policy of allotment. By passing the Indian Reorganization Act, Congress recognized that a land base was essential for the economic advancement and self-support of Indian communities. The IRA allowed tribes to restore their homelands and to rehabilitate their economies and communities. Restoration of land to tribal ownership was central to the overall purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act.

Unfortunately, a recent Supreme Court decision has brought uncertainty to 75 years interpretation regarding trust land acquisition under the Indian Reorganization Act. On February 24, 2009, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Carcieri v. Salazar case. In that decision the Supreme Court held that the Secretary of the Interior exceeded his authority in taking land into trust for a tribe that was not under Federal jurisdiction at the time the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 1934. The Supreme Court decided that the act only applied to tribes who were ``under federal jurisdiction'' when it was passed in 1934.

The legislation I am introducing today is necessary to clarify the continuing authority of the Secretary of the Interior, under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, to take land into trust for all Indian tribes that are federally recognized on the date the land is placed into trust. The legislation also ratifies the prior trust acquisitions of the Secretary, who for the past 75 years has been exercising his authority to take lands into trust, as intended by the Indian Reorganization Act.

Inaction by Congress on the Carcieri decision will create two classes of tribes--those who are considered ``under federal jurisdiction'' and can have lands taken into trust and those who cannot. Creating two classes of tribes is unacceptable and runs counter to federal Indian policy, the Indian Reorganization Act, and subsequent Congressional Acts intended to ensure that all tribes are treated equally and have the same sovereign rights. The decision will also significantly impact planned development projects on Indian trust lands, such as housing, schools, community, and health centers, and result in a loss of jobs in an already challenging economic environment.

I want to thank Senators Conrad, Franken, Inouye, Johnson, Kerry, Tester and Udall for their support on this critical legislation. My cosponsors are well aware of the negative impact this decision has already had, and would continue to have on our Native American communities. Affected tribes deserve our timely consideration of this bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, the Senator from New York and I are on the Senate floor today to introduce

legislation that will help make the Senate a more effective place to deal with the big issues facing our country, such as the debt, our national defense, and other issues.

This is the result of discussions we have had over the last several months with many Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. It began with some reforms in Senate rules, which included eliminating the so-called secret hold and doing other steps. It is the culmination of work by a number of Senators on both sides of the aisle--including Senator Lieberman; Senator Collins; the leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, when they were whips; Senator Schumer and I; and others. We had bipartisan breakfasts on these reforms a couple years ago, and it came down to the questions: How many confirmations should the Senate have? How many confirmations are enough confirmations? Is it in the public interest to allow a new President, whether Democratic or Republican, to staff the government promptly? And is it in the public interest to get rid of this syndrome that is established in Washington, which I call ``innocent until nominated,'' where we invite a distinguished person to come in and run that person through a gauntlet that makes him or her out to be a criminal for making some mistake in the process of being confirmed?

We have worked together, and we have come up with legislation that Senator Schumer is introducing on behalf of both of us--on behalf of the leaders, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, and on behalf of Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins.

This legislation would answer the question, how many confirmations are enough confirmations, by reducing or streamlining the nomination process for about 450 nominees--out of a total of about 1,400 nominations. Over 1,000 Senate confirmed nominations will remain unchanged. Just to put that into perspective, that is still more confirmations than existed when President Clinton was President of the United States. It is almost four times as many confirmations as existed when President Kennedy was President of the United States. In other words, like many things in government, the number of confirmations has grown over time.

We have ended up confirming people we have no business confirming-- people who are public relations officers, people who are financial information people--and we have made it difficult for the government to be staffed.

Is it in our interest, and the citizens', to staff the government promptly? Yes, I think it is. We have created this phenomenon where Administrations are slow to get staffed up. For example, when President Obama came in, Secretary Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, was sitting over at Treasury almost home alone during the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression. According to news accounts, he did not have much help. The key vacant positions in Treasury were Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy, and a variety of others. That situation was not helping any of us. Whether we agreed with President Obama or Secretary Geithner or not, after an election a President should be able to promptly staff the government, and we in the Senate should have procedures to give us a chance to review those nominees and offer our advice and consent and confirm or reject those nominees in a reasonable period of time.

If we are spending our time dealing with junior officials or PR officers, we are spending less time dealing with the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, on whom we should be focusing a lot of time, and to whom we should be asking a lot of questions.

Then, there is this business of what I call ``innocent until nominated''--all of us know this exists. It really exists by sloppiness on our part, both in the legislative branch and the executive branch. If you are asked to serve in the Federal Government--and I know this because I was asked by the first President Bush--you fill out forms. Well, there are many forms. There are many forms in the executive branch. They have different definitions; for example, the definition of ``income.'' If you were to carelessly fill out the same definition of ``income'' on one form as another form, you might have been incorrect on one of the forms, and then someone might say you were telling a lie and were not fit to serve. That has been called by others, including me, as being ``innocent until nominated.''

I remember when Ron Kirk, the former mayor of Dallas, was nominated by President Obama to be the Trade Representative. There was some issue about whether he had properly reported a speech fee he gave to charity. What difference did it make in terms of his overall fitness to serve? It held him up. It embarrassed him. It was not relevant to the inquiry.

So the legislation we have will do the following: It proposes eliminating the need for Senate confirmation or streamlining over 450 positions. About 200 of these nominations will be eliminated as Senate confirmations. These are the ones the Senate does not need to spend time on. The other half will come directly to the desk. Then, unless an individual Senator says: Send it on to committee to go through the regular order, it will be expedited. That still leaves us with 1,000 Senate confirmations that we can have--1,000 hostages we can take. That is more hostages than we could take under Bill Clinton. That is almost four times as many hostages than the Senate could take under President Kennedy. That ought to be plenty of hostages for any Senator to make his or her point if that is what we seek to do.

Second, the legislation would set up a process whereby an executive branch working group would review the various forms that nominees are expected to fill out, and try to have a single smart form in the executive branch. The working group will consult with committees of Congress. It might make sense to see if we can do the same thing with our forms, and make it possible that we can get all the information we want without unnecessarily subjecting nominees to harassment or trickery just because they are not wise enough to fill out different forms with different definitions.

I think this is a substantial step forward. It may not sound like much to those watching the Senate, but let me just say that both of our leaders, Reid and McConnell, have said they tried this and could not get it done. Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins have tried, and they could not get it done. I worked with Senator Lieberman 2 years ago and we could not get it done.

What has happened this time is a result of the discussion we had earlier in the year about making the Senate a more effective place to work--with the full support of the leaders, Reid and McConnell; with the full support of Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins; and with the good work of Senator Schumer. We have come up with a consensus piece of legislation which has broad bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle, including chairmen and ranking members of the committees you would think might be the first ones to object. This legislation would still leave the Senate with the prerogatives it ought to have in terms of reviewing Presidential nominees and separates out those who take our time away from the more important things we ought to be doing.

I thank the Senator from New York for the way he has worked on this issue. He has been constructive and direct and helpful. I thank the leaders for their support. I hope the committees will rapidly consider the legislation Senator Schumer is introducing on our behalf, and I hope it will show we can take another small step in making the Senate a more effective place to work.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a document entitled ``List of Presidential Appointments No Longer Requiring Senate Confirmation''--there are about 200 of those--and a document entitled ``Privileged Nominations.'' Those are the ones that will be expedited, unless a single Senator decides he or she wants to have this nominee sent to committee, and that is about another 240.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I notice that the Senator from New York is also on the Senate floor. I thank him for his work on this issue.

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Tennessee. He has been a great partner in this effort. In fact, I would say it was his impetus that brought us here. He had thought about this long and hard and worked on it previously. As usual, it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Alexander on the Rules Committee or anywhere else, and I thank him for spearheading this effort.

I also want to thank the two leaders, Senator Reid, of course, my friend--and I am so proud to work under his leadership--and Senator McConnell. I have to say this: Senator McConnell and I have our differences, but on all of these issues of moving the Senate forward he has been operating in good faith, and his support of this legislation has allowed us to get here.

Also, the committee chair, Senator Lieberman, as well as Ranking Member

Collins, have been equal partners in this legislation, and it will go through their committee.

Finally, I thank all the committee chairs. They have been very understanding of the need to do this. Obviously, committee chairs might say: I want to have before my committee every single person, but ultimately they have realized it slows down the Senate.

While we are introducing the legislation today, a number of committee chairs on our side--probably with the consent of their ranking members--have come to me and said there might be other positions they want to add to the list. That would be a good idea. We have tried to be careful. We do not want to step on any toes or prerogatives. In the past, when this legislation was attempted, people said: Well, just, I don't want this one; I don't want that one. So we were fairly minimal. It will have a real effect on the Senate. It is close to one-third of the appointments. But there may be different committees that say: I don't need to approve this. In my committee, the committee on which I am the chair, the committee on which I am the ranking member, we do not need to approve these five or six more. Add them to your list.

We would hope our committee chairs would do that before the bill is considered because it will be considered by Senator Lieberman's committee, and there they could make such additions.

So let me say this about the process: One of the most important duties of the Senate is the constitutional advice-and-consent power. We were careful to balance this interest with the importance of making the confirmation process more efficient--not only for the benefit of the Senate but as well for the benefit of the administration, its agencies, and, as Senator Alexander so aptly pointed out, for those individuals who are nominated as well.

The Senate was designed to be a thoughtful and deliberative body, but the confirmation process has often become dangerously close to being gridlocked. The American public is harmed when we are not able to get qualified people confirmed to positions in a timely manner. All of the positions covered in this proposal tend to be noncontroversial and more closely resemble appointments that are currently made without Senate approval.

This legislation consists of a stand-alone bill, the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act, and a resolution. Senator Alexander touched on the stand-alone bill, which will eliminate from Senate confirmation over 200 executive nomination positions and nearly 3,000 additional officer corps positions. The resolution will create a standing order that will streamline approval of almost 250 part-time board members.

We intend to move both of these pieces together in an effort to reform this process. Together, these two pieces will remove or streamline, as I mentioned, nearly one-third of currently confirmable Senate appointments.

The act will remove the need for confirmation for several categories of positions, including legislative and public affairs positions, chief financial officers, information technology administrators, internal management and administrative positions, and deputies or non-policy- related assistant secretaries who report to individuals who are Senate- confirmed. Removing these positions from Senate confirmation will allow a new administration to be set up with more efficiency and speed, thus making government work better for the people.

In addition, we have removed thousands of positions from the Public Health Service officers corps and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officer corps in the process. They are noncontroversial, and their removal will help prevent the possibility of further gridlock.

This act will also create a working group--because this is a work in progress, and Senator Alexander has been working on it longer than I have or most of us in this body--that will provide recommendations on the process to further streamline the appointment and confirmation process. The group will make recommendations to the President and the Senate about streamlining the paperwork process for nominees by creating a single, searchable, electronic ``smart form'' and will also conduct a review of the current background investigation requirements.

Senators Lieberman and Collins held a hearing on the confirmations process last month in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which will have jurisdiction over this piece of the package. The hearing was extremely helpful to our working group efforts and further highlighted the fact that our system of dealing with executive nominations needs reform.

The resolution piece of the package will create a streamlined process for part-time positions on boards or commissions. A majority of these boards require political balance--a certain number of Democrats and a certain number of Republicans. We are doing this rather than eliminating Senate consideration in its entirety in order to ensure that these politically balanced boards remain bipartisan. This was actually a recommendation, I believe, by Senator McConnell, and I think it is an apt one.

The resolution creates a standing order that will provide for an expedited process for this class of ``privileged nominations'' by creating new pages on the Executive Calendar. When the Senate receives a nomination from the President, it will be placed on a new section on the Executive Calendar called ``Privileged Nomination--Information Requested'' while the nominee submits paperwork to the committee of jurisdiction. When the chair of that committee certifies that all committee questionnaires have been received from the nominee, the nomination will be placed on the ``Privileged Nomination--Information Received'' section of the Executive Calendar.

As Senator Alexander mentioned, after 10 session days, the nomination is placed on the full Executive Calendar and will await action by the full Senate, with the presumption that these positions will be passed by unanimous consent. So any single Senator can object, although we doubt in almost every case that any will.

From the beginning of the process until the expiration of 10 session days, any Member can request on his or her own behalf or on behalf of any identified Member that the nomination be referred to committee. We think that incorporating this safeguard is in line with our elimination of secret holds earlier this year.

The presumption for these part-time positions is, as I said, that they will be approved by unanimous consent and not be held up as part of other battles or leverage or whatever else.

This resolution would come before the Rules Committee, which Senator Alexander and I lead, and we hope to take action on it very soon. We are confident this package will eliminate many of the delays in the current confirmation process. These delays are very detrimental to the efficient operation of government and to the efforts to recruit the most qualified people to these Federal jobs.

The package we propose today is the first step in protecting the American people's interests in having a newly elected President move quickly and efficiently to set up a government.

Before I yield the floor, I note that the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Udall, in his impetus to reform the Senate, can claim some credit for this move as well.

We are introducing this bipartisan legislation--Senator Alexander and myself, along with Senators Reid, McConnell, Collins, Lieberman, and I think about eight or nine other cosponsors as well--this afternoon.