Floor Statements

Today, I introduced the Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act as co-chair of the Great Lakes Task Force with Senator George Voinovich and several of our colleagues here in the Senate and in the House. This bill is important for our efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes now and for future generations. The Great Lakes are vital not only to Michigan but to the nation. Roughly \1/10\ of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes basin and depends daily on the lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million people in the U.S. and Canada. They provide the largest recreational resource for their 8 neighboring States. They form the largest body of freshwater in the world, containing roughly 18 percent of the world's total. Only the polar ice caps contain more freshwater. They are critical for our economy by helping move natural resources to the factory and to move products to market.

While the environmental protections that were put in place in the early 1970s have helped the Great Lakes make strides toward recovery, a 2003 GAO report made clear that there is much work still to do. That report stated: ``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including increased threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.'' More recently, many scientists reported that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of stress due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and hydrologic modifications. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes scientific experts states that ``historical sources of stress have combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected ecosystem response.''

Asian carp represents a massive threat and a number of important actions are required to deal with it. The zebra mussel, an aquatic invasive species, caused $3 billion in economic damage to the Great Lakes from 1993 to 2003. In 2000, 7 people died after pathogens entered the Walkerton, Ontario drinking water supply from the lakes. In May of 2004, more than 10 billion gallons of raw sewage and storm water were dumped into the Great Lakes. In that same year, more than 1,850 beach closures in the Great Lakes. Each summer, Lake Erie develops a 6,300 square mile dead zone. There is no appreciable natural reproduction of lake trout in the lower four lakes. More than half of the Great Lakes region's original wetlands have been lost, along with 60 percent of the native forests. Wildlife habitat has been destroyed, diminishing opportunities necessary for fishing, hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation.

These problems have been well known for several years, and this bill is an effort to address those problems. First, the bill authorizes the President's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a multi-agency effort, which provides the needed federal funds to federal programs as well as non-federal partners through grants.

Building on past success, there are a number of programs that need to be authorized and reauthorized in federal law. For instance, the bill authorizes the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, established by Executive Order in 2004, so that the many federal agencies operating in the Great Lakes will coordinate with each other. Restoring the Great Lakes involves many stakeholders including the Federal Government, states, cities, tribes and others, and Congress needs to be sure that the Federal agency efforts are in order.

The bill also reauthorizes and expands the Great Lakes Legacy program which has been extremely successful and has cleaned up about 900,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern throughout the Great Lakes. This is a partnership program which requires a non- federal cost-share to address the legacy of contaminated sediment in our region. The Legacy program expires at the end of 2010.

The bill reauthorizes the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office which has been and will continue to be a key to moving forward with Great Lakes protection and restoration. This office has been the lead in renegotiating the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, implementing the Great Lakes Legacy program, and implementing its own grant program.

Finally, the Great Lakes region needs a process for advising the EPA and other Federal agencies on Great Lakes matters. While there have been various advisory groups that have been pulled together over the years, there has never been a standing advisory entity, and that has been a gap in the governance and management of the Great Lakes. This bill authorizes a new advisory group to provide expertise to the EPA on goals and priorities for Great Lakes restoration and protection.

The Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We are but their temporary stewards. We must be good stewards by doing all we can to ensure that the Federal Government meets its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes.

Today, I introduced the Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act as co-chair of the Great Lakes Task Force with Senator George Voinovich and several of our colleagues here in the Senate and in the House. This bill is important for our efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes now and for future generations. The Great Lakes are vital not only to Michigan but to the nation. Roughly \1/10\ of the U.S. population lives in the Great Lakes basin and depends daily on the lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 40 million people in the U.S. and Canada. They provide the largest recreational resource for their 8 neighboring States. They form the largest body of freshwater in the world, containing roughly 18 percent of the world's total. Only the polar ice caps contain more freshwater. They are critical for our economy by helping move natural resources to the factory and to move products to market.

While the environmental protections that were put in place in the early 1970s have helped the Great Lakes make strides toward recovery, a 2003 GAO report made clear that there is much work still to do. That report stated: ``Despite early success in improving conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, significant environmental challenges remain, including increased threats from invasive species and cleanup of areas contaminated with toxic substances that pose human health threats.'' More recently, many scientists reported that the Great Lakes are exhibiting signs of stress due to a combination of sources, including toxic contaminants, invasive species, nutrient loading, shoreline and upland land use changes, and hydrologic modifications. A 2005 report from a group of Great Lakes scientific experts states that ``historical sources of stress have combined with new ones to reach a tipping point, the point at which ecosystem-level changes occur rapidly and unexpectedly, confounding the traditional relationships between sources of stress and the expected ecosystem response.''

Asian carp represents a massive threat and a number of important actions are required to deal with it. The zebra mussel, an aquatic invasive species, caused $3 billion in economic damage to the Great Lakes from 1993 to 2003. In 2000, 7 people died after pathogens entered the Walkerton, Ontario drinking water supply from the lakes. In May of 2004, more than 10 billion gallons of raw sewage and storm water were dumped into the Great Lakes. In that same year, more than 1,850 beach closures in the Great Lakes. Each summer, Lake Erie develops a 6,300 square mile dead zone. There is no appreciable natural reproduction of lake trout in the lower four lakes. More than half of the Great Lakes region's original wetlands have been lost, along with 60 percent of the native forests. Wildlife habitat has been destroyed, diminishing opportunities necessary for fishing, hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation.

These problems have been well known for several years, and this bill is an effort to address those problems. First, the bill authorizes the President's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, a multi-agency effort, which provides the needed federal funds to federal programs as well as non-federal partners through grants.

Building on past success, there are a number of programs that need to be authorized and reauthorized in federal law. For instance, the bill authorizes the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, established by Executive Order in 2004, so that the many federal agencies operating in the Great Lakes will coordinate with each other. Restoring the Great Lakes involves many stakeholders including the Federal Government, states, cities, tribes and others, and Congress needs to be sure that the Federal agency efforts are in order.

The bill also reauthorizes and expands the Great Lakes Legacy program which has been extremely successful and has cleaned up about 900,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments at Areas of Concern throughout the Great Lakes. This is a partnership program which requires a non- federal cost-share to address the legacy of contaminated sediment in our region. The Legacy program expires at the end of 2010.

The bill reauthorizes the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office which has been and will continue to be a key to moving forward with Great Lakes protection and restoration. This office has been the lead in renegotiating the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, implementing the Great Lakes Legacy program, and implementing its own grant program.

Finally, the Great Lakes region needs a process for advising the EPA and other Federal agencies on Great Lakes matters. While there have been various advisory groups that have been pulled together over the years, there has never been a standing advisory entity, and that has been a gap in the governance and management of the Great Lakes. This bill authorizes a new advisory group to provide expertise to the EPA on goals and priorities for Great Lakes restoration and protection.

The Great Lakes are a unique American treasure. We are but their temporary stewards. We must be good stewards by doing all we can to ensure that the Federal Government meets its ongoing obligation to protect and restore the Great Lakes.

Mr. President, I am relieved that we are preparing to vote on this much-needed measure. I am disappointed that we have taken so long to get to this point.

There is very little opposition in this Chamber to the extension of unemployment and COBRA benefits. Few question the crisis we would kick off in homes across this country if we fail to extend these benefits. In the State of Michigan, 135,000 of these workers face the end of their unemployment benefits. Each of these homes is already dealing with a tragedy--the loss of a job. In most cases, these are mothers and fathers who have done what we expect American families to do: work hard, do their best, try to put food on the table and a roof over their family's heads, and hopefully ensure a better life for their children. This quintessentially American quest has been derailed by forces totally outside the control of most of those affected.

This extension means more than help to workers out of a job. It means help for our entire economy. Economists tell us that payments such as unemployment benefits are the most efficient way we can increase growth in our still-struggling economy. An unemployment check is more than just help for a family. It means local grocery stores still have customers, that unemployed workers can continue paying their bills. The consequences of an extension of these benefits--or a decision not to extend them--will ripple throughout the economy.

But above all, we should keep in mind those families who are afraid: wondering, worrying, about what is going to happen. In their moment of crisis, we can choose to reach out a much-needed helping hand. Or we can turn away. To have delayed this extension has been needlessly cruel. We owe a duty to these families now, a duty not to compound the tragedy they already face.

Mr. President, in 2009, bills aimed at weakening the ability of universities to regulate the possession of firearms on campus were introduced in 12 State legislatures, including the Michigan State Legislature. In 2008, 17 States saw similar legislation introduced. Fortunately for the safety of students, faculty, and visitors, none of these bills passed. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal, as of July 2009, State legislative efforts to allow firearms on college campuses had been defeated 34 straight times nationwide. However, while this statistic demonstrates a clear national consensus that guns do not belong at universities, the National Rifle Association, NRA, continues to push for weaker gun regulations.

Already in 2010, efforts have been undertaken that would weaken the ability of colleges to determine their own security needs in Arizona, Georgia, Virginia, and Colorado. These legislative efforts are part of a strategy to pressure State legislatures into passing legislation that would force colleges to allow the possession and use of firearms by students, faculty, and others on campus. According to a report from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, entitled ``No Gun Left Behind: The Gun Lobby's Campaign to Push Guns into Colleges and Schools,'' this strategy can be seen as a response to the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007. According to this strategy, the way to prevent future violence on college campuses is to have more guns on campuses.

Increasing the number of guns in university settings is likely to increase the threat of violence. Every day at colleges across the country, young people engage in risky behaviors involving alcohol and drugs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, binge drinking and illegal drug use is highest among 18- to 24-year- olds. Furthermore, a report by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that ``nearly half of America's full-time college students abuse drugs or drink on binges at least once a month.'' This behavior is dangerous enough without introducing a weapon into the environment. Additional threats to public safety stemming from firearms on campuses include the high risk of gun thefts in typically unsecure college living environments, as well as an increase in the number of accidental shootings.

Students and faculty should feel safe while on campus. Contrary to the claims of some, more guns on campus will not create a more secure campus. More guns will increase the threat of violence, and that is why legislation that would force universities to allow firearms on campus is misguided.

Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to express my frustration and my dismay at the roadblocks which have been placed in the way of Senate nominations for key positions at the Department of Defense. These obstructions take place at a time when these nominees-- there are four of them--are critically needed by the Department of Defense. We are a nation at war. Our national security interests require us to end these obstruction tactics and immediately fill these four positions with highly qualified patriots.

Each of these nominees has been favorably reported to the Senate by unanimous vote from the Committee on Armed Services. They responded to extensive advance policy questions. They appeared at a hearing of our committee. Nobody has informed me of any concern about the qualifications of any one of these four nominees. Yet there is an objection here on the floor of the Senate every time these nominations are considered for confirmation. If any Senator has a concern about any of these four Defense Department nominees, I wish they would let me know about those concerns so we can address those concerns. We have heard from nobody. We have unanimous approval by the Armed Services Committee of four Defense nominees. They have been sitting on our calendar since December 2--over 2 months--while these positions go unfilled and we are in the middle of two wars.

One of these nominees is retired Marine Major General Clifford Stanley. He was nominated to be Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. This position is critically important. It is responsible for our military readiness. It is responsible for our total force management. It is responsible for military and civilian personnel requirements that need to be filled. This position is responsible for pay and benefits. Let me repeat this. The pay and benefits of our military personnel is the responsibility of the person who has been nominated for this position, and he has been sitting waiting for confirmation for 2 months. What kind of a message is this to the men and women who put on the uniform of this country? Military and civilian personnel training is the responsibility of this office, military and civilian family matters, exchange, commissary, nonappropriated fund activities, personnel requirements for weapons support, National Guard and Reserve personnel matters, and health care for the military and their families.

General Stanley was the first African-American regimental commander in the Marine Corps. He has served with honor and distinction. He is now retired. We are lucky we can get someone such as General Stanley to come back into public service to fill this position. Yet there has been a hold on his nomination since December 2.

The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have both made personal appeals to me and to other Members, including, I think, the leadership of this body, to confirm General Stanley so he can perform those essential duties which I have outlined. His nomination, again, was unanimously supported by our committee. Our distinguished Presiding Officer is a wonderful member of our committee. No one, again, has brought any problem with this nomination to my attention. No one has said he is not qualified. I think there is unanimous consensus that he is extraordinarily well qualified.

While we have servicemembers, who have volunteered to serve, and their families under great stress, they are fighting for our interests in two wars, we have a critically important person

who is awaiting confirmation for a position which affects every one of their lives. It is unconscionable that these roadblocks were placed in the way of these nominees.

Another critical nomination is that of Frank Kendall III, who was nominated to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. The individual confirmed to this position is responsible for assisting the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics in supervising Department of Defense acquisition, establishing policies for acquisition, including the procurement of goods and services, research and development, developmental testing, and contract administration.

We have all these problems with contracts, with testing, with development, with cost overruns. We reformed our law now so that we have much better acquisition rules in place to try to see if we can't get rid of some of these cost overruns.

We have a nominee to fill the position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and our friends on the other side of the aisle--someone over there--have a hold on his nomination for, I know, no reason related to his qualifications. There has been no issue about his qualifications, about any of the four of these nominees. Again, we have a critical position. As I indicated, particularly we have acquisition reform which we just adopted. It is so essential to control the cost of our national defense. Mr. Kendall's nomination, like General Stanley's nomination, has been before this Senate since December 2, over 2 months.

Another nomination is that of Erin Conaton to be the Under Secretary of the Air Force. We all know her. She is on the staff of the House Armed Services Committee. Nobody has raised an issue about her. We are lucky to have her. Yet there is a hold from the other side of the aisle for some unspecified reason, nothing to do with her. But here she is in a position which is so important to the Air Force.

If designated by the Secretary, the Under Secretary of the Air Force serves as the Department of Defense Executive Agent for Space. She also serves as the chief management officer of the Air Force--we have all these problems, and our Presiding Officer knows about the problems of auditing and knows about the management and the business problems we have in our defense units. He knows it from experience in the Senate. He knows from his own personal life experience how important this is. And we cannot get the woman--who probably is as knowledgeable about this subject as anyone, based on all of her years over at the House Armed Services Committee--we cannot get her off the Senate calendar.

Terry Yonkers has been nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations and Environment. This Assistant Secretary is responsible for overall supervision for all matters relating to Air Force installations, environment, and logistics, including planning, acquisition, sustainment and disposal of Air Force real property and natural resources, environmental program compliance, energy management, safety and occupational health of Air Force personnel.

These are important, vital positions to the well-being of our men and women in uniform. It is unconscionable that one or more people on the other side of the aisle continue to put holds on these nominations. They cannot find any problem with their qualifications because there is none. It is just endless holds, endless filibuster threats, endless roadblocks that stop these and so many other nominations. But these are Defense Department nominations in the middle of two wars, and these roadblocks have to be removed.

I hope we will take up all four of these nominations immediately. We have servicemembers volunteering to risk their lives in defense of the Nation. The least we can do--the least we can do--as a Senate is to confirm nominees for the critical positions to lead the Department of Defense.

Again, finally--and I know my great friend from Illinois is sitting 3 feet away from me and has made the same suggestion, as he has pressed so hard to get these roadblocks removed--if anybody has a problem with these nominees, would they please come to the floor and tell us. They can tell us, hopefully, publicly, but they could tell us privately. We have heard nothing. These nominees--all four of them--were unanimously approved in the Armed Services Committee. So we don't know of any problem. We know their qualifications, and they are extraordinary in every one of their cases.

This filibustering that is going on around here and the threat of filibustering and the constant roadblocks that are thrown up in front of these nominees is unconscionable. It goes beyond anything I have ever seen around here in 32 years. We all know there are people who object to nominees, but, hopefully, usually because they have an objection against something the nominee has done or said. In this case, there is nothing like that. This is some unrelated matter, apparently, which has caused somebody to hold them hostage while they try to extract some concession out of somebody.

It seems to me, as a body, we simply have to find a way where we can get our nominations back on a reasonably decent track. I say that, with greater emphasis, when in the middle of two wars we have four essential nominees.

Yes.

In charge of it; right.

Quite the opposite. His references were superb. Not only was there no objection raised, it was quite the opposite. We were delighted he was willing to come out of retirement and serve. This is a real find. These nominees are performing a real public service, in many cases taking a lot less money in pay than they could get in the private sector.

I agree with my good friend from Illinois too. Many of us--I will not say all of us--including myself, have placed holds on nominations. That is not unusual. But usually there is some reason you have that you are willing to disclose and you want to take up with the nominee or you want some report that has not been filed that was promised. You want something that relates to the nominee. The objections here, the roadblocks here have nothing to do with these nominees. There is no objection to these nominees.

I see my good friend from Vermont has come to the floor. He has to live with this a lot more than I have to with this. This is probably 20 percent of my time. He has roadblocks in front of the Judiciary Committee nominees that take up probably more than half Senator Leahy's time.

I yield my time.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Wayne County Sheriff's Office on its newly announced initiative to provide gun trigger locks free of charge to firearm owners in the Metro Detroit area. Partnering with local religious leaders and Project Child Safe, an organization that provides gun locks to law enforcement agencies, the Sheriff's Office seeks to reduce the number of firearm-related accidents that occur in the home.

Every year, far too many children get access to guns in homes across the United States, often with fatal consequences. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2006, 154 children and teens died as a result of unintentional shootings, and in 2008, 3,997 children and teens were injured by a firearm unintentionally. It is imperative that gun owners across the country safely store their weapons out of the reach of children to prevent these tragic accidents. Safe storage includes keeping guns unloaded, using trigger locks, storing guns in a locked, safe place away from children, and storing ammunition in a separate, locked place.

Providing gun owners with trigger locks and educating them on gun safety and storage has become even more important with the recent increase in

the number of gun owners, specifically the number of concealed weapon permit holders. According to Wayne County Sheriff Benny Napoleon, there are currently 41,687 concealed weapon permit holders in Wayne County. There were 13,843 permit applications in 2009, up from 9,300 in 2008, and so far in 2010, the Sheriff's Office has seen an average of 61 requests per day. In light of this dramatic increase, we must do everything we can to reduce the risk guns pose to children.

Commonsense gun safety legislation, such as mandatory child safety locks, could help reduce the number of tragic accidents that kill and injure young Americans. Again, I applaud the efforts of the Wayne County Sheriff's Office on their distribution of free gun trigger locks to gun owners in the Metro Detroit community.

Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Stabenow the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act, which would permanently protect 32,557 acres within the extraordinarily beautiful Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore located in the Michigan counties of Leelanau and Benzie. This legislation reflects the 2008 National Park Service wilderness proposal, which was the result of a lengthy public process beginning in 2006, and culminating in broad public support for the proposal. The wilderness designation improves upon a 1981 recommendation by ensuring that access to recreational areas is provided while protecting lands in their natural condition.

While there currently are no areas in the Lakeshore formally designated as wilderness, the National Park Service has been managing 30,903 acres as wilderness since 1982, when an amendment to the park's enabling legislation required the Park Service to manage land recommended as wilderness in 1981 in this manner ``until Congress determines otherwise.'' The legislation I am introducing today would modify somewhat which areas would be managed as wilderness to ensure visitors continue to have access to these lands. The bill specifically excludes developed county roads and State highways from the wilderness area such that access is not impeded for recreation and other purposes. Several areas for boat launching and historic structures have also been excluded from the wilderness designation. Even with these exclusions, the overall acreage that would be designated as wilderness is slightly more than the area currently managed as wilderness because Sleeping Bear Plateau would be protected. Importantly, the wilderness designation would still allow hunting and fishing, trail-use, and camping at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Also, motor boats would still be allowed in Lake Michigan, and boaters would be allowed to beach their craft on beaches adjacent to the wilderness area.

The bill was carefully crafted to ensure that the wilderness designation would apply only to areas currently undeveloped and possessing natural characteristics and values. There are five areas that would be designated as wilderness by this legislation. Most of North and South Manitou Islands would be designated as wilderness, with some exclusions for boat launching, roads, and historic structures. Wilderness would also be designated in the north, central, and southern parts of the Lakeshore on the mainland. In the mainland areas there are also exclusions for roads and recreational and historic features.

The dramatic dunes, sandy beaches, steep bluffs, forests, inland lakes, agricultural lands, and historic structures of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore embody the rich natural and cultural history of Michigan. This wilderness designation would ensure that current and future generations will be able to enjoy solitude and recreation in these treasured areas. Even as the Sleeping Bear dunes are ever- changing as they are sculpted by the wind, it is critical that we protect these and other natural assets from being altered by development. I hope we can have prompt consideration of this bill by the Senate.

Mr. President, today I am introducing with Senator Stabenow the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Conservation and Recreation Act, which would permanently protect 32,557 acres within the extraordinarily beautiful Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore located in the Michigan counties of Leelanau and Benzie. This legislation reflects the 2008 National Park Service wilderness proposal, which was the result of a lengthy public process beginning in 2006, and culminating in broad public support for the proposal. The wilderness designation improves upon a 1981 recommendation by ensuring that access to recreational areas is provided while protecting lands in their natural condition.

While there currently are no areas in the Lakeshore formally designated as wilderness, the National Park Service has been managing 30,903 acres as wilderness since 1982, when an amendment to the park's enabling legislation required the Park Service to manage land recommended as wilderness in 1981 in this manner ``until Congress determines otherwise.'' The legislation I am introducing today would modify somewhat which areas would be managed as wilderness to ensure visitors continue to have access to these lands. The bill specifically excludes developed county roads and State highways from the wilderness area such that access is not impeded for recreation and other purposes. Several areas for boat launching and historic structures have also been excluded from the wilderness designation. Even with these exclusions, the overall acreage that would be designated as wilderness is slightly more than the area currently managed as wilderness because Sleeping Bear Plateau would be protected. Importantly, the wilderness designation would still allow hunting and fishing, trail-use, and camping at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Also, motor boats would still be allowed in Lake Michigan, and boaters would be allowed to beach their craft on beaches adjacent to the wilderness area.

The bill was carefully crafted to ensure that the wilderness designation would apply only to areas currently undeveloped and possessing natural characteristics and values. There are five areas that would be designated as wilderness by this legislation. Most of North and South Manitou Islands would be designated as wilderness, with some exclusions for boat launching, roads, and historic structures. Wilderness would also be designated in the north, central, and southern parts of the Lakeshore on the mainland. In the mainland areas there are also exclusions for roads and recreational and historic features.

The dramatic dunes, sandy beaches, steep bluffs, forests, inland lakes, agricultural lands, and historic structures of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore embody the rich natural and cultural history of Michigan. This wilderness designation would ensure that current and future generations will be able to enjoy solitude and recreation in these treasured areas. Even as the Sleeping Bear dunes are ever- changing as they are sculpted by the wind, it is critical that we protect these and other natural assets from being altered by development. I hope we can have prompt consideration of this bill by the Senate.

Mr. President, we have been asked by the President to confirm Ben Bernanke to a second term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Given the current state of the economy, and the nature of the crisis that led to the recession from which we are struggling to recover, this request has generated a great deal of controversy. I am conflicted by this nomination, and I want to explain my decision to support it.

The most striking feature of the economic crisis is that it was, to a large extent, a collective failure of financial regulation. It was not a function of the normal waxing and waning of the economic cycle. Instead, our financial institutions engaged in ever-more complex, highly dubious, and risky transactions, and when the risk was exposed, it set off a chain reaction that dragged down our entire economy.

The lack of adequate financial regulations was a major cause of the crisis. We must reform that system on an urgent basis. Consumers' rights need to be protected.

But in addition to the failures of the system, part of the crisis was made possible by collective failures of those entrusted to oversee the financial system. Chairman Bernanke was one of those people. He and others should have been more forceful in reining in the greed-driven abuses and excesses of our financial sector.

Some of my colleagues who share this view believe that this fact alone should justify a ``no'' vote on Chairman Bernanke. But I believe that we must weigh both Chairman Bernanke's role and actions before the crisis, but also those since the crisis began. In other words, was he a bigger part of the problem or the solution?

First, while Chairman Bernanke should have acted more forcefully to try to prevent the crisis, most of the abuses that brought it about occurred in areas outside the Federal Reserve's primary areas of oversight. I also believe that Chairman Bernanke's and the Federal Reserve's recent support for enhanced financial regulation are crucial to correcting some of the structural failures that lead to the crisis.

Second, the Federal Reserve's actions helped to prevent this tragic recession from becoming a second Great Depression. This is no small thing. As bad as the last several months have been, they would have been even worse but for Chairman Bernanke's leadership.

Lastly, it is clear that Chairman Bernanke's role in preventing a deeper crisis has earned him some confidence in our financial markets. A defeat of

his renomination carries the risk of shaking these markets, at the very moment we need them to operate in a stable fashion so as to help boost our fragile economic recovery.

When making the decision of whether to support this nomination, I end up believing that Chairman Bernanke's performance in addressing the economic crisis and his current efforts to significantly enhance financial regulation to help prevent future crises, outweigh his past mistakes. On balance, I believe that Chairman Bernanke should be given the opportunity to continue to help pull us through this difficult period, and I will vote in favor of his confirmation.

Madam President, I recently returned from a trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan with Senator Al Franken. We heard a great deal of troubling news out of Afghanistan over the past few months. Casualties have increased and the political situation has been unsettled. Based on what we saw and heard during our trip, I am somewhat more optimistic that we will succeed in Afghanistan. I am a lot more optimistic now than after my last visit to Afghanistan in September. Success, to me, is defined as preventing the Taliban from returning to power at the same time we strengthen the Afghan security forces to take responsibility for Afghan security in order to ensure stability in Afghanistan.

Over the course of 3 days, we met with key civilian and military leaders in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In Pakistan, we met with Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani; Army Chief of Staff Kayani; and a leader from the opposition party, Ahsan Iqbal. Pakistan has taken some steps to take on elements of the Pakistan Taliban and al-Qaida but has been for the most part unwilling to take on the Afghan Taliban which uses Quetta in the south of Pakistan and North Waziristan in Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas as safe havens and to attack Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, we met with U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry; GEN Stanley McChrystal, Commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF; LTG David Rodriguez, Commander of the ISAF Joint Command; LTG William Caldwell, who leads the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan; and British MG Nick Carter, Commander of ISAF forces in Regional Command South. We also met with key Afghan officials, in particular President Karzai, Minister of Defense Wardak; and Minister of the Interior Atmar. Outside Kabul, we traveled to bases in Kandahar province, where we met with Canadian and American ISAF troops who are fully embedded in a partnership, i.e., living side-by- side with Afghan security forces.

Our men and women in uniform are performing magnificently. We visited with our troops in the field in Kandahar, and they are living and operating in a difficult environment with only basic accommodations. Yet their morale is high and they are eager to carry out their mission. And they have some of the best leadership our military has to offer in ISAF Commander GEN Stanley McChrystal, Lieutenant General Rodriguez, and Lieutenant General Caldwell. On the civilian side, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and his team are putting in place the diplomatic and technical expertise in Kabul and the field to match our military effort.

One reason I am more optimistic now than when I visited Afghanistan in September is our counterinsurgency strategy is taking hold. Our troops are comfortable with the new focus on securing the Afghan people. This requires that our troops remain with the Afghan people and not just clearing towns and villages of Taliban and then leaving the Afghans to fend for themselves when the Taliban return. Our troops understand and embrace this people-centered approach. As British MG Nick Carter, Commander of the coalition forces in the south, said:

If we show confidence and mutual trust, the population will

look after us.

The Afghan people are more optimistic than they have been in the recent past. A recent ABC News survey found that 70 percent of the Afghans polled said Afghanistan is headed in the right direction, a significant jump from a year ago. Over 60 percent of Afghans expect their children will have a better life. The Taliban remain extremely unpopular, and 68 percent of Afghans continue to support the presence of our troops in their country.

I have long been convinced that our principal mission in Afghanistan should be training the Afghan security forces. That drove my belief that we should not focus on adding more U.S. combat forces, except where we needed to train, equip, and support Afghan security forces.

As I put it when the President was considering additional combat forces, I supported a show of commitment but said commitment could be shown by additional trainers and support personnel, along with a flow of equipment to Afghan forces. I expressed then and believe now our major mission should be a surge of Afghan forces to take on the Taliban. Afghan security forces will ultimately win or lose the long battle with the Taliban. Our support will help, but our growing presence has a downside: a growing footprint, which is the physical and rhetorical propaganda target for the Taliban.

We heard in our conversations that President Obama's West Point speech in December has had a tangible, positive impact in ways that I believe are the most significant in Afghanistan. According to LTG Bill Caldwell, the head of our NATO training command, the number of new recruits signing up for the Afghan Army has skyrocketed from 3,000 in November to over 11,000 recruits in training today. The training command has had to turn recruits back because they didn't have enough trainers on hand. Lieutenant General Caldwell told us, forcefully and clearly, that what energized the Afghan leadership to call for and to reach out to new

recruits was the July 2011 date President Obama set for the beginning of reductions in U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Even more than the pay increase, which was announced for Afghan troops, Lieutenant General Caldwell said setting that date by President Obama made clear to the Afghan Government and to the Afghan people that President Obama means business when he says our presence in Afghanistan is not an open-ended commitment. Afghan leaders became focused on planning for the shift in principal responsibility from coalition forces to their forces that is highlighted by that July 2011 date, and they took urgent steps to increase recruitment to the Afghan Army. While it is too early to determine if the surge in U.S. combat forces will have the effect President Obama and General McChrystal intend, it is not too early, in other words, to see a positive effect toward accomplishing the mission of strengthening and training the Afghan Army.

A key to the success of that mission will be partnering with the Afghan security forces. In Regional Command South's Kandahar area, which we visited, coalition and Afghan units are partnering on a one- to-one basis at all levels, from planning at the headquarters down to operations at the platoon level, and Afghans are taking the lead in operations. When I visited Helmand Province in the south in September, there were about five U.S. marines for every one Afghan soldier. In the coming months, additional Afghan forces will be arriving in Helmand so, by April, coalition and Afghan units will be partnered on a one-to-one basis as they conduct the key mission of providing security in the Helmand River Valley. We were informed Afghan forces will be leading that vital and dangerous mission.

Senator Franken and I saw up close how partnering of coalition and Afghan forces is being put into operation. This is not just about joint operations, though that is part of it. It is about Afghan and coalition troops living together and integrating their daily lives. This partnering is at the heart of our troops' mission, which is to prepare Afghan security forces to take responsibility for their nation's security. Some fully integrating partnering in the field is already occurring. General Rodriguez promised us he will get data on how many of the units in the field that are planning and operating with coalition units are fully integrated and how often and how many Afghan units are leading significant operations. While we didn't need more combat troops for the partnering mission--the shortfall being in the number of Afghan troops--the increase in Afghan units partnering with us is a significant advance.

Our military leaders often describe our counterinsurgency doctrine as shape, clear, hold, and build. But this falls short by one key goal. To shape, clear, hold, and build must be added ``transition,'' meaning our goal must be to transition responsibility for Afghanistan's security to their security forces. The commanders in the field we talked to get this, and their fully integrated partnering with Afghan security forces is the key to this transition.

While I am pleased with the speed with which partnering is occurring in the field, I am disappointed with the shortfall in trainers needed for the Afghan Army and police. Currently, only 37 percent of the required U.S. and NATO trainers for building the Afghan Army and police are on hand in Afghanistan or, numerically, 1,574 out of a requirement for more than 4,235 trainers. Lieutenant General Caldwell's training command has been promised the first 1,000 of the 30,000 U.S. soldiers flowing into the theater with that surge, and 150 of that 1,000 have already arrived. At the same time, NATO countries remain 90 percent short of meeting the ISAF mission requirements for trainers with less than 200 non-U.S. trainers deployed against a non-U.S. NATO commitment of about 2,000. Only 200 have arrived on the scene. Another 200 NATO trainers were pledged by NATO members in December but without a timeline for when those trainers would arrive in theater. That is simply unacceptable. Those NATO countries that are either unwilling or unable to send additional combat troops into the fight in Afghanistan should be able to help provide trainers for basic training who operate away from the frontlines. Lieutenant General Caldwell told us, any well-trained U.S. or coalition soldier could instruct Afghan soldiers in the 8-week course of basic training. A top priority for our NATO allies at the London conference, which I believe is this week, needs to be closing the gap in trainers for the Afghan Army and police.

Another area where there has been progress is on equipping the Afghan security forces, and that is critical to accelerating the growth of the Afghan Army and police.

The training command reports that the equipment requirements for the Army and police have been identified and listed, and actions are underway to meet those needs, including with equipment coming out of Iraq as U.S. forces draw down there. This month, equipment began to flow from the Iraq theater to Afghanistan, and Lieutenant General Caldwell's staff expects that over 250 of over 1,300 humvees from Iraq will begin to arrive this month to meet the needs of the Afghan police. This was made possible by the language in the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act which authorizes the transfer of nonexcess as well as excess defense equipment from Iraq to Afghanistan as U.S. forces draw down in Iraq.

Finally, relative to plans for the reintegration of lower level Taliban fighters, the Karzai government has been working closely with General McChrystal's staff, under the leadership of a British major general, to construct a plan offering incentives to low- and mid-level Taliban fighters who are willing to lay down their weapons and recognize the Afghan Government's authority. Incentives would include amnesty and jobs programs for reintegrating former fighters. President Karzai has said he will be ready to issue this plan within a month or so, and U.S. officials expect to be fully supportive. It will take a few months after that to make the plan operational. While there is apparently no progress to negotiate with higher level Taliban to end the violence and become politically active, it does not reduce the need to chip away at that lower level Taliban group.

We read in the press today that progress is being made, as a matter of fact, with local leaders in Afghanistan in that endeavor.

In conclusion, we saw some signs of progress on our visit in a number of critical ways--in training and equipping Afghan security forces; in partnering closely in the field with the Afghan security forces; in a perception and reality of optimism among the military, civilian officials, and the Afghan people; and in devising a plan for reintegrating Taliban fighters who lay down their arms. We have the right strategy and mission for stabilizing the security situation and transitioning responsibility for Afghanistan's future to the Afghan Army and people. While we are on the right track now, we have a long way to go before we can feel confident that the tide has turned.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the Office of Rural Development within the U.S. Department of Agriculture will say farewell to a dedicated colleague and friend later this week. Frank J. Tuma, Director of Community Programs for the Agency in Michigan, is retiring after 37 dedicated years of public service, and I am delighted to have an opportunity to recognize this significant milestone.

Frank began his Federal career with the Peace Corp and spent 2 years in the Philippines. He later accepted a position with the Farmers Home Administration, which would become the Office of Rural Development, where he has served the interests of rural Michigan for 31 years as part of the Community Programs Division. Throughout Frank's 31 years, he has consistently provided invaluable guidance and leadership on countless issues and projects. During the past 5 years, Frank has served as the Director of Community Programs, where he has led efforts to bring critical funding to rural communities across Michigan. Countless communities now have safe drinking water and efficient waste water systems that protect the environment due to the efforts of Frank and his team.

Those who have worked with Frank describe him as devoted, loyal, and passionate about his work and the people with which he works, qualities that will surely be missed by his colleagues and friends. Beyond his personal qualities, he has distinguished himself through a number of impressive accomplishments and has served as a mentor to many on his staff. The Rural Development National Office has turned to Frank many times over the years for his input and recommendations on new processes and systems. He was instrumental in creating, testing, and implementing the CPAP System, a computer program that compiles data and underwrites loans and grants for water and sewer projects.

I am proud to join citizens and communities across rural Michigan in thanking Frank Tuma for his dedication, focus, and persistent efforts as a Federal employee. Frank has forged a wonderful legacy, and I know he and Connie are looking forward to many years together in retirement.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has scheduled a hearing for Thursday, February 4, 2010, entitled, ``Keeping Foreign Corruption Out of the United States: Four Case Histories.'' The Subcommittee hearing will examine how some politically powerful foreign officials, their relatives, or close associates--referred to in international agreements as ``Politically Exposed Persons'' or PEPs--have used the services of U.S. professionals and U.S. financial institutions to bring millions of dollars in suspect funds into the United States to advance their interests. Four case histories will illustrate how some PEPs have used U.S. lawyers, realtors, escrow agents, lobbyists, bankers, and others to circumvent U.S. anti-money laundering and anti-corruption safeguards. It will also look at how some U.S. professionals have actively helped PEPs avoid bank scrutiny or facilitated suspect transactions with no questions asked. The hearing will also examine whether U.S. policies and practices to combat foreign corruption and money laundering need strengthening. Witnesses will include government agencies, including the State Department, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), as well as lawyers, a realtor, and representatives of financial institutions.

The Subcommittee hearing has been scheduled for Thursday, February 4, 2010, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Laura Stuber of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at 202-224-9505.

Mr. President, we are now debating a resolution that would raise the Federal debt ceiling, allowing the Federal Government to borrow enough money to meet its obligations. I doubt anyone in this Chamber is happy at the prospect of approving another such increase. I know I am not. Yet we must approve it. Failure to pass this resolution would do incalculable harm to our government's standing with financial markets and endanger nearly every activity the government undertakes. It would throttle the faint, fragile signs of recovery from the deepest financial crisis in 75 years. Refusal to pass this resolution is not an option. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to the jobs and income of every American.

Yet the magnitude of this action is staggering. If successful in this necessary endeavor, we will authorize the Treasury to carry more than $13 trillion dollars in debt. That is more than $42,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

While the debt itself is enormous, the rate to which we have been adding to it in recent years is equally staggering. The year President Clinton left office, the government ran a $236 billion surplus. Yet, after 8 years of Republican leadership, that surplus evaporated into a mind-boggling $1.3 trillion deficit the day President Obama took office.

The message of these numbers is simple: We cannot go on as we are. If we do not change our budget policies, and change them a great deal, we will plunge our economy into deep depression.

Discretionary spending and nondiscretionary spending alike must be addressed. While some have successfully politicized earmark spending and discretionary spending programs, good and bad alike, the simple fact is that merely addressing these issues will not balance our budgets.

In addition to meaningful spending reforms, we must also engage in meaningful revenue reforms. The Bush-era tax cuts have already added trillions to our debt. Most should not be renewed. We also should end loopholes that allow corporations to hide income in offshore entities and people to hide their assets and income overseas.

But the fact is that most of our budget choices are not easy. And it is precisely because these choices are so difficult that we find ourselves where we are now. So it is worth considering how we got into this situation and how we might get out of it and whether the amendment to this resolution to be offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg presents a possible solution.

First, let me respond to those who seem to have just recently discovered the importance of the Federal debt. Many of the people bemoaning budget deficits today are the same people who advocated a series of policies under the previous administration that added

greatly to our deficits, including enormous tax cuts mainly for the wealthiest. No effort was made to pay for that policy or the two wars. They were financed by debt.

In fact, to the extent that our budget outlook is significantly worse at the end of this decade than it was in the beginning, decisions by the previous administration are by far the biggest contributor to the problem. In parceling out the blame for our massive deficit, one expert said, the Obama administration ``is like a relief pitcher who enters a game in the fourth inning trailing 19-0 and allows another run to score. The extra run is nothing to cheer about, of course, but fans should be far angrier with the starting pitcher.''

However we reached this point, it is our responsibility now to address the consequences of failing to act. That is why I believe the amendment offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg is worthy of consideration.

Briefly, they propose to establish a task force to recommend changes to our budget policies to address our long-term fiscal crisis. The task force would consist of 18 members: 16 Members of Congress, equally divided between House and Senate and majority and minority, and 2 administration officials, the Treasury Secretary and another Presidential appointee. Recommendations would require approval of 14 of the commission's 18 members. Those recommendations would be referred to the Budget Committee and other committees of jurisdiction in each Chamber and then move automatically to floor votes in each Chamber, where passage would require a three-fifths vote.

There is much to recommend this approach. Our fiscal problem is so large partly because it is so politically difficult to address. Repairing our finances will require some combination of spending cuts and tax increases, and spending cuts and tax increases are rarely politically popular. The use of a task force to recommend difficult but necessary choices for the common good has been successful in the past, in several rounds of military base closings and with the Greenspan Commission on Social Security reform in 1983.

But this approach is not without flaw. One is the structure of the task force, which would include two executive branch appointees.

Some have argued that the legislative commission must include members from the executive branch to achieve Presidential buy-in on the commission's proposal. And I agree that gaining the support of the administration is vital in this effort. But in seeking that buy-in, I do not believe it is either necessary or proper to give executive branch officials votes, which are potentially decisive votes, on recommendations that would bypass the Senate's rules and procedures. The proper way to achieve Presidential buy-in is through Presidential communication and consultation and the threat of an actual Presidential veto of a task force proposal, if passed by the Congress, if it is objectionable to the President. The appropriate buy-in before Congress acts could also be advanced with ex officio membership for the two executive appointees.

I was pleased that the task force proposal we are voting on today no longer gives the task force power to recommend changes to the Standing Rules of the Senate. That is a welcome change from its prior iterations. Successfully tackling our fiscal crisis will require far- reaching legislation, and procedural hurdles in both chambers make passing any far-reaching legislation extraordinarily difficult. But any permanent procedural changes in our rules should be made by the Members themselves in each Chamber and not through this process.

Despite my reservations, particularly about voting membership for executive branch officials on a congressional commission that has the power to bypass the normal rules of our body for consideration of its recommendations, I believe Senators Conrad and Gregg have offered a way forward. Their 60-vote requirement for positive congressional approval of the task force's recommendations does significantly protect congressional prerogatives. It also is clear that our current political climate and ways of doing business have been unequal to the task. Addressing our deficit requires bold action. The consequences of failure to act are too severe for us to miss this chance to act. I will vote for the Conrad-Gregg proposal.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I speak today in tribute to one of the citizens of my own hometown of Detroit, one of the thousands of decent, hard-working, community-minded Detroiters who make me so proud to call the city my home.

You will not find Rayman Dodson in the history books or the newspapers. But for the last 80 years, since he graduated from Northwestern High School, you would have found him doing what so many other Detroiters have done: working hard, and doing his part, building the lives that make up our city.

As an employee of Ford, Chrysler, the city's street railway, and in the homes of several of Detroit's most prominent citizens, Rayman earned a living sufficient for him and his beloved wife Margaret to buy a home on the city's east--side a place for Margaret to display her crystal collection. For decades, he has contributed to Mayflower Congregational Church of Christ.

Several years ago, Rayman lost his sight but not his interest in the world around him or his ability to delight his friends. Many of those friends are preparing to help him celebrate his 100th birthday. I wish him well on that day, and congratulate him on a century well lived.