Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to discuss America's relationship with our Eastern European friends as well as the challenges America faces in our relationship with Russia.

Over the last decade in the Senate, I have been a champion of NATO and worked diligently to increase membership in the alliance. I have also been active in improving our image in Eastern Europe through the expansion of the Visa Waiver Program at the request of our friends and allies in Eastern Europe. My passion for foreign relations stems in large part as a supporter of Ohio's diverse ethnic communities. As mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio, I gained a keen understanding of Europe from my close work with constituents who had ties to countries that were once subject to life behind the Iron Curtain. This goes back to my first paper in undergraduate school and how the United States sold out Yugoslavia at Teheran and Yalta.

We did see the Berlin Wall fall and the Iron Curtain torn thanks in part to the efforts of Pope John Paul II, President Reagan, and President George H.W. Bush. But even with the end of the Cold War, I was deeply concerned that darker forces in Russia could once again reemerge as a threat to democracy, human rights, and religious freedom not just for the Russian people but for the newly freed ``captive nations'' of Eastern Europe.

I understood getting those nations into NATO could make the alliance more vibrant and healthy and give them safe harbor from the possible threat of Russian expansionism. One of my proudest moments in the Senate was being present at Prague in March of 2002 in the room when Lord Robertson announced that seven countries--Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia--were invited to join NATO.

When I was Governor of Ohio and chairman of the National Governors Association, I led an effort in 1998 to

secure passage of an all-50-State resolution in support of NATO expansion for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. These new members have brought great vigor to the NATO Alliance and are now some of our strongest allies working alongside our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan--especially Afghanistan.

As such, I was astounded last week to see the Obama administration appear to turn its back on some of our staunchest NATO allies. Last week's missile defense announcement was made with little advance notice or consultation and disregarded the great political capital expended by the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic. This decision leaves the impression that the United States is dealing unilaterally with Russia without regard to our NATO allies. Regardless of the merits of the decision itself--and I had a chance to talk to Secretary Gates about it, and it makes sense that this was a good decision--the manner in which it was revealed to Warsaw and Prague was a major public relations and public diplomacy blunder.

The Polish people are up in arms about the decision--and not so much with the decision, but the way it was handled and the disregard for handling it in a proper fashion. The fact also that the decision was announced on September 17, 2009, the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland, makes it even worse. The way this decision was communicated shabbily to Poland and the Czech Republic should also send a shiver down the spines of our brothers and sisters in Eastern Europe and their Baltic neighbors, who are concerned with Russia's aggressive efforts to reassert its influence in what was once the Soviet Union.

In an opinion piece in last Friday's edition of the Washington Post, David J. Kramer, of the German Marshall Fund, notes that:

Whatever the official explanation now for not moving

forward, many--including the Kremlin--will read this shift as

an effort to placate Moscow. Announcing the decision ahead of

[President] Obama's meeting with Russian President Dmitry

Medvedev this week in Pittsburgh reinforces such thinking.

I had the opportunity this past July to travel to the Baltic States with my friends Senators Durbin, Cardin, and Wicker as part of the U.S. delegation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, to the parliamentary assembly that was held in Vilnius, Lithuania. As part of that trip, I also visited Riga, Latvia--a stop that marked the highest ranking official visit of the United States in Latvia in over 3 years. In all of our bilateral meetings with Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Ministers from former Soviet countries or countries the Soviet Union exercised influence over, we were told it was comforting for them to know their membership in NATO serves as a hedge against a potential expansionist Russia.

We should be worried about the uncertainty surrounding a Russia that is reverting back to a KGB-ruled country seeking to weaponize its oil and natural gas resources as a means to expand its influence on Europe and the West.

I think one of the concerns we all ought to have is that many members of the European Union, instead of coming together and negotiating with Russia over the issue of natural gas, are cutting their own deals. I think we should be very concerned that in the long run many of those countries are not going to be able to make good decisions because of the influence Russia will have over their natural gas resources.

Russia has the world's largest reserves of natural gas and has the eighth-largest oil reserves. Moscow turned off the tap to Ukraine this past winter. They could do it again. We should also be concerned about Moscow using its control of oil and natural gas to pit members of NATO against each other.

There is much talk about resetting the U.S. bilateral relationship with Russia. Moscow seeks to regain its global stature and be respected as a peer in the international community. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.

I believe there are key areas where the United States and Russia share common cause and concern: Russia is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and will be essential to effective multilateral pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program; Russia continues to have leverage on the North Korean regime and has stated that a nuclear- free Korean peninsula is in the interest of both our countries; we are partners on the International Space Station--in fact, we are going to rely on them to send our NASA people to the space station; and, until the Georgia situation flared in August of last year, our government and U.S. industry were working hard on a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia, very much like the one we entered into with India.

With the world economy as it is today, the worst thing we could do is break off communication and revert back to our Cold War positions. This week's G-20 conference in Pittsburgh is an opportunity to further engage Russia and determine where we have a symbiotic relationship and what we can accomplish together for the good of the international community. Nevertheless, such a reset should not come at the expense of our Eastern European friends.

Time will tell whether last week's decision will have any influence on Russian cooperation on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty--START-- or our efforts to prevent a nuclear-armed Iranian regime.

In the meantime, we have our work cut out as we seek to rebuild confidence and trust with our friends in Eastern Europe. After last week's events, I suspect that their confidence in the reliability of the United States as a partner and ally has been shaken.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 25 minutes.

Mr. President, building on a series of speeches I have given over the past few years and in the tradition of a former Member of this body, Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, I hope to provide my colleagues and the American people with regular updates on our catastrophic national debt. Unfortunately, given the lack of action to address this coming tsunami, I believe President Obama and Congress need to be reminded of the fiscal realities in which we find ourselves. Senator Hollings came down to the Senate floor every few weeks with a poster updating the national debt, and today I renew his tradition, and I will continue it until we do something about this unsustainable financial crisis.

One of my grandchildren's favorite stories is ``The Emperor's New Clothes'' by Hans Christian Anderson. In the tale, an emperor goes about the land wearing a nonexistent suit sold to him by a new tailor who convinced the monarch the suit is made of the finest silks. The tailors--two swindlers--tell the emperor that the threads of his robes will be so fine that they will look invisible to those dimwitted or unfit for their position. The emperor and his ministers, themselves unable to see the clothing, lavish the tailor with praise for the suit because they do not want to appear dimwitted or incompetent.

Word spread across the kingdom of the emperor's beautiful new robes. To show off the extraordinary suit, a parade was formed. People lined the streets to see the emperor show off his new clothes. Again, afraid to appear stupid or unfit, everyone pretends to see the suit. It is only when a child cries out ``the emperor wears no clothes'' does the crowd acknowledge that the emperor is, in fact, naked.

Much like the emperor, America's elected leaders know we face a fiscal train wreck, but we are choosing to ignore our current economic reality. I am here to tell my colleagues and President Obama, the emperor has no clothes and we are naked in terms of dealing with our deficits and national debt.

As shown right here on this chart, get the book out. I am sure you have it. Read it. That is where we are right now. The irony is that the American people know we are naked, and they are coming to Washington to let us know we are naked, and so does the rest of the world, and our credibility and our credit today are at risk.

I have this chart, what I refer to as the ``Wheel of Misfortune.'' This lays out quite clearly what our national debt is today.

One of the reasons I ran for the Senate back in 1998 was I wanted to come to Washington and reduce the national debt and balance budgets, which is something I did as the mayor of the city of Cleveland and something I did as Governor of the State of Ohio.

When I came to the Senate in 1999, our gross national debt stood at $5.6 trillion or 61 percent of the GDP. Today, as you can see from the chart behind me, the gross national debt is nearly $11.8 trillion. I understand the President is going to ask us to increase our debt limit to $12 trillion and, quite frankly, I believe he is going to be asking us to raise the debt limit to more than $12 trillion.

This is an increase of more than 100 percent in 10 years. Much of this increase has come recently. In fact, from 2008 to 2009 alone, the Federal debt will increase 22 percent, boosting the country's debt-to- income ratio--our national debt as a percentage of GDP--from 70 percent last year to 86 percent this year. We haven't seen this kind of GDP debt since the Second World War. It was 65 years ago during the Second World War that we saw these kinds of numbers.

By the way, this does not include our unfunded Medicare and Social Security obligations which the Peterson Foundation recently tagged at $56.4 trillion. This is the equivalent of a $483,000 debt per American household or $184,000 for every man, woman, and child in America today. Those are unfunded liabilities.

It doesn't take an economist to realize our course is unsustainable. President Obama and this Congress are fully aware of this reckless fiscal path. Yet they continue to spend and borrow,

spend and borrow. Our Federal Government is the worst credit card abuser in the world. We talk to our kids about not abusing their credit cards. What kind of example do we set? You know what. We are putting the tab on the credit of our children and grandchildren.

Like the boy who cried ``the emperor has no clothes,'' the American people see through this sham. There were a bunch of them here this weekend who saw through the sham. A recent poll conducted by the Peterson Foundation showed that after their personal job, the most pressing concern of Americans is the national debt. Americans are cutting back, folks, in their own family. They are making tough decisions. They know they haven't been living within their means.

Some people are saying: Why are they paying attention to this finally? Well, they are finally realizing in their own families they need to redo the way they are doing things, and they are asking themselves: Why isn't our Federal Government doing the same thing we are doing in our households? It is no wonder they are looking at government's reckless spending with disapproval and wondering why we are not doing the same thing they are doing. They are mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it anymore.

The media is also finally starting to pay attention to this issue. Recently, the Washington Post ran an article by Fred Hiatt, their chief editorial writer, acknowledging that our long-term fiscal path is unsustainable, as well as an editorial taking the administration to task for lacking a plan on how to start digging our economy out of this fiscal crisis.

Additionally, Newsweek published an article by Fareed Zakaria where he outlines what he describes as ``the disease of modern democracy: the system cannot impose any short-term pain for long-term gain.'' We are unwilling to pay for it or do without.

The first one, this Newsweek article, is called,

There is a Silver Lining.

The crisis has forced the United States to confront bad

habits developed over the past few decades. If we can kick

those habits, today's pain will translate into gains.

The other is a Washington Post article entitled ``No Laughing Matter. Why the U.S. Needs to Get Serious About Long-Term Budget Deficits.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record the articles to which I previously referred.

Mr. President, now is the time to take the first step toward fiscal responsibility and making good on our promises by enacting meaningful, comprehensive tax and entitlement reform. The recent pay-as-you-go legislation passed by the House isn't going to get the job done. We know that. This Band-Aid relies on smoke and mirrors and exempts the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, patching the alternative minimum tax, updating physician payments in Medicare, and modifying the estate tax. It is intellectually dishonest. Even the Budget Committee chairman in the Senate, Senator Conrad, calls this pay-go that came out of the House insincere. If Congress is going to reenact statutory pay- go, then it should apply to everything, not just to what is convenient.

We need real comprehensive reform. I am pleased to say it appears as though President Obama is finally starting to get it. In an interview with the Washington Post, President Obama endorsed the idea of creating a commission where--here is what he said:

Everything is going to be on the table when it comes to

examining our tax and entitlement systems and presenting

long-term solutions to place the United States on a fiscally

sustainable course.

He went on to say:

What you end up having to do in terms of structural reforms

realistically is you probably have to set up some sort of

commission or mechanism that reports back with the prospect

of maybe locking in a pledge for action, post election.

I know we have talked about this on occasion, about this commission and setting it up and trying to get the administration to commit to it so we can let the American people know we are sincere about doing something about this debt and balancing our budget.

For the past three Congresses, I have been calling for such a commission. This Congress, I am proud to say, Senator Lieberman has joined me as an original cosponsor to create the commission now.

Similar to the BRAC process, the Save America's Future Economy Commission--we call it SAFE--would break the legislative logjam in Washington by creating a bipartisan, bicameral committee to draw up policy prescriptions for the government's long-term budget shortfalls that would then go before Congress on an up-or-down vote. The legislation is similar to legislation introduced by Congressmen Jim Cooper and Frank Wolf in the House, and today they have 69 cosponsors. It is vital--it is vital--to ensuring the solvency of entitlement programs for future generations.

It is my understanding that Pete Peterson and David Walker of the Peterson Foundation have endorsed this legislation along with the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institute, the Business Roundtable, and a host of other former CBO Directors who said it is time for us to do something about the problem, and they understand we will not get it done with the regular order of business. We have to have a commission come back with a recommendation, put it on a fast track, send it to the House, send it to the Senate, and let us either vote up or down as we do with the commissions we have set up on closing bases.

I am sure many of my colleagues are familiar with this legislation. I know David Walker has met with both Republican and Democratic legislative leaders or directors regarding this legislation.

Continuing down our current path, folks, is unsustainable. It is unsustainable, and it is immoral. For too long we have clothed ourselves in economic falsehoods, pretending they would protect us from the harsh economic realities. Folks, time is running out. The world sees that the emperor, in fact, has no clothes. I am calling on President Obama to follow through on his comments about the need for a commission and support the SAFE Commission Act.

OMB Director Peter Orszag has understood our fiscal crisis in the past and called for the creation of an entitlement commission, but since joining the administration he has stopped pushing for a commission, instead focusing just on health care reform. The bottom line is health care reform is but one of the major issues that needs to be addressed to respond to our fiscal crisis. We must also reform the Tax Code to encourage personal savings, investment, job creation, and economic growth. A lot of Americans are not aware of this fact, that we spend $240 billion a year paying our taxes; that is, to pay for professional help and keeping track of all of the papers we need to have when we prepare to pay our Federal income tax.

I think the current health care debate in Congress is a perfect example of why a piecemeal approach doesn't work. If we dealt with the fiscal crisis, it would be a lot easier for us to deal with health care.

There is a new poll out just today, AP, that says half of Americans are more concerned about tackling our debt than our health care reform, education, and climate change. Did my colleagues hear that? Over half of them say deal with the fiscal crisis. The reason I believe we are having such a darn difficult time dealing with health care and why we are not going to pass any kind of climate change legislation is that the people of this country know we have a fiscal crisis and they want us to contend with that before we deal with these other issues.

I think the American people know we can't afford the health care system we now have, and we must find a way to be more responsible. Think of this: We spend $2.2 trillion on health care in this country. The Medicare trust fund will be insolvent in 2017, and we have to reform the way we pay physicians under the program, which experts say will cost us $280 billion over 10 years. Furthermore, the States are already overburdened by the cost of their Medicaid programs.

We gave the States $87 billion in the stimulus bill. I can tell you in ordinary circumstances, many States usually come to Washington with a tin cup. I can guarantee you that the Governors of this country are going to be down here with a large bathtub asking us to fill it because of the problems they confront.

In other words, they can't now take care--well, they can now because they got the $87 billion, but once that runs out, they are going to be down here saying: We can't handle the current system as it is. How can we expand Medicaid when we can't take care of the Medicaid Program we now have? With the financial crisis we have in this country, we have to be careful of taking on something we can't afford, particularly when we can't afford to pay for what we already have.

I am surprised that in the President's speech last week he didn't talk about the fact that by 2017--everybody needs to understand this-- the money coming in for Medicare would not be adequate to take care of the people who are out there who are eligible for Medicare. It is part of what I call that unfunded liability I talked about earlier.

The Peterson Foundation recently commissioned an in-depth health care study conducted by the Lewin Group, and I urge my colleagues to take a close look at this analysis and see the principles the Peterson Foundation lays out to determine a fiscally responsible health care reform bill.

I am not the only one calling for Congress to be fiscally responsible when considering health care reform. In order for health care reform legislation to be fiscally responsible, it must, one, pay for itself over a 10-year period; two, not add to the deficit beyond a 10-year period; three, bend the cost curve down to reduce health care spending; and four, significantly reduce current unfunded obligations. That is what we should be talking about.

President Obama and Congress must act. We all came to Washington to serve, and we have a moral responsibility to leave this place better than what we found it. How will we look our children and grandchildren in the eye knowing we have mortgaged their future at a time when we know they are going to have to work harder than we have to maintain the standard of living we enjoy.

God has blessed me with three children and seven grandchildren. I am constantly worried about what kind of America they are going to be living in. I know darn well the competition we face today worldwide is a lot more fierce than anything I experienced during my life here. I know because of that competition they are going to have to work harder. They are going to have to work smarter. It would be very cruel for us, on top of that, to lay this terrible burden on their shoulders and say: We weren't willing to pay for it or do without, so you take care of it. It is your problem. You handle it.

I was pleased to hear President Obama echo this last Wednesday during his joint session of Congress, the same sentiment I have just made. He stated--and I quote the President of the United States:

I understand that the politically safe move would be to

kick the can further down the road--to defer reform one more

year, one more election, one more term. But that is not what

the moment calls for. That is not what we came here to do. We

did not come here to fear the future. We came here to shape

it. I still believe we can act, even when it is hard.

President Obama's words ring true in light of the fiscal challenges we face as a nation today. And they should get the first priority. Until we start on a commission, Congress, the administration, the American people, and the world will know the Emperor has no clothes. We are naked in terms of realizing and dealing with our fiscal crisis. Now is the time to act.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the passing of our dear colleague and friend, Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

Our great Nation has lost a true statesman, and the Kennedy family has lost its beloved patriarch. Senator Kennedy's unparalleled leadership and decades spent in service to his fellow Americans will be missed by all, especially here in the U.S. Senate. No one can deny that Ted was a man of convictions, passion and resolve for doing what he felt was best for the country. While I was not always in agreement with him on policy, I always knew he was my friend.

His willingness to reach across the aisle and find common ground serves as an inspiration to all of us during this pivotal moment in our Nation's history. Senator Kennedy and I shared a passion for early childhood development, and together with Senator Gregg, we worked on legislation to improve the quality and availability of early education for all children.

On a more personal note, Ted was a guiding light for me during my late-nephew's treatment for bone cancer. His uplifting spirit and thoughtfulness helped steer my family through a very difficult time, and I will never forget the words he shared with us: ``Even when it's sometimes stormy one day, the sun always seems to shine the next.''

Janet and I will keep Victoria and the entire Kennedy family in our thoughts and prayers during this trying time, as they mourn the loss of

both Ted and his sister Eunice. Senator Kennedy's great shadow of leadership which loomed so large across the U.S. Senate will continue for years to come, and I hope the Kennedy family and my colleagues can find solace in the fact that Ted has joined our Heavenly Father.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The role of the Senate in the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is to give its advice and consent on the President's nomination. I believe it has been the longstanding tradition of this body that we are to judge whether an individual is qualified to serve based on the complete record of each nominee.

Once again, I compliment Senators Sessions and Leahy for the excellent job they have done in handling the confirmation hearings for Judge Sotomayor. The hearings were fair and enabled the American people to get a better understanding of what sort of Justice Judge Sotomayor will be. Equally important, these hearings were conducted with civility, allowing Senators to disagree without being disagreeable. This is something I would like to see more of in the Senate. Sadly, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, the judicial nomination process has become so partisan that it seems to bring out the worst in the Senate, when it ought to bring out the best.

I believe the factors to be examined in determining whether a Supreme Court nominee is qualified include her education, prior legal and judicial experience, judicial temperament, and commitment to the rule of law. Based on my review of her record, and using these factors, I have determined that Judge Sotomayor meets the criteria to become a Justice of the Supreme Court. I didn't come to this determination lightly, and Judge Sotomayor has made statements that give me pause. However, after reviewing her judicial record and the comments made during the Judiciary Committee hearings, on balance, I believe she is fit to serve on our Nation's highest Court.

I am comforted by Judge Sotomayor's express rejection of then-Senator Obama's view that in a certain percentage of judicial decisions ``the critical ingredient is supplied by what's in the judge's heart and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.'' In answer to a question from Senator Kyl, Judge Sotomayor said:

I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is

judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't

determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a

judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that

compels conclusions in cases, it's the law. The judge applies

the law to the facts before that judge.

In addition to being fit for the bench, the story of Judge Sotomayor is the story of so many Americans who rose from humble beginnings to reach levels of achievement that would not be possible in any other nation.

It is sort of the story that reminds me of what is so unique and special about our Nation, that a young working-class Latina woman or the son of a first-generation Eastern European immigrant family can be nominated to the Supreme Court or be elected to serve his home State in this great Chamber.

During our private meeting, Judge Sotomayor and I were able to discuss this opportunity. What struck me is she is someone who understands what a great opportunity this is, as well as the great challenges that await her. While the Founding Fathers may have a disagreement with her on some of her legal views, I think they would be proud that judging individuals on their merit has endured as part of this great experiment.

As a number of my colleagues have already noted, Judge Sotomayor, through hard work, has risen from humble beginnings to now await confirmation to the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor excelled throughout her academic career. From the time at Blessed Sacrament School and Cardinal Spellman High School, where she was the valedictorian of her class, she has excelled in highly competitive environments. Like Justice Alito, she is a graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School. Judge Sotomayor attended Princeton on scholarship and graduated not only summa cum laude but also was the recipient of the prestigious Pyne Prize from that university. Judge Sotomayor went on to Yale Law School, where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Her academic record should serve as an inspiration to all that in a meritocracy, we all have an equal opportunity to rise to the top.

After her stellar academic career, Judge Sotomayor entered public service as a district attorney in New York, where her drive and basic fairness were well noted. This commitment to public service impressed me.

Judge Sotomayor not only succeeded in the public sector, she also worked her way up from associate to partner, practicing corporate law at a New York law firm. In private practice, Judge Sotomayor specialized in intellectual property and copyright law. Her rise from associate to partner in such a specialized field is a clear indication that the private sector recognized her merit and rewarded her for her skill and ability.

Judge Sotomayor returned to public service with her appointment to the district court, where she served for 6 years. I believe Judge Sotomayor's experience on the district court will be invaluable to the Supreme Court, where none of her colleagues have experience as a judge in a trial court. I hope her experience there will help shape her future opinions, particularly in procedural cases where many commentators have noted a need for rules that work in practice, not just in theory.

Judge Sotomayor's time on the trial bench was marked by opinions that set forth the facts and applied the law narrowly. Did you hear that? Her time on the trial bench was marked by opinions that set forth the facts and applied the law narrowly--exactly what one would want from a trial court.

In addition to district court experience, Judge Sotomayor has appellate court experience, over 10 years on the Second Circuit. I reviewed many of her opinions from her time on the Second Circuit, and while many were not opinions I would have offered, her opinions, as well, were within the legal mainstream. Judge Sotomayor's opinions, for the most part, were lengthy, workman-like, limited rulings, the sort of opinions that exhibit the judicial restraint one would hope for a Supreme Court Justice.

Given her academic and professional achievements, it is not surprising that the American Bar Association has given the judge its highest ratings when considering her for the Supreme Court.

While impressive in what she has overcome to reach this point in her career, her record is not without blemish. In particular, the one comment that gave me significant pause as to whether I would support her nomination is the now well-known statement by the judge that ``a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.'' Such a statement is repugnant to someone like me who has worked so hard to reach a colorblind society where an individual's race or gender is not considered in judging a person's merit. The question I had to ask myself was, Is this comment an indication that Judge Sotomayor would reject the rule of law and blind justice to favor certain people on the basis of inappropriate criteria? After study of her judicial record, I have concluded it is not. Based on my review, Judge Sotomayor's decisions, while not always decisions I would render, are not outside the legal mainstream and do not indicate an obvious desire to legislate from the bench. Furthermore, Judge Sotomayor recognized during her nomination hearings that this ``could be hurtful'' and was not reflective of how she would judge cases. Through my review and my staff's review of her cases, her testimony, and my conversations with the judge, I have confidence that the parties who appear before her will encounter a judge who is committed to recognizing

and suppressing any personal bias she may have to reach a decision that is dictated by the rule of law and precedent.

I think I would be remiss in my discussion of the judge if I failed to address the Supreme Court's decision in the Ricci v. DeStefano case. By now, all my colleagues and many Americans are aware that the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision in the Ricci case. The case involved a reverse-discrimination suit against the city of New Haven, CT.

Some opponents of Judge Sotomayor's confirmation have used this opinion to suggest that her legal philosophy is outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence and that her nomination should be rejected. I believe a review of the close decisions rendered by the various Federal courts, including the Second Circuit's 7-to-6 decision to refuse to rehear the case and the Supreme Court's 5-to-4 decision to reverse the Second Circuit, suggests this matter was, for a number of the judges who reviewed the case, a close call. In other words, it was very close. For one to say she is outside the mainstream when these decisions were so close I think is really stretching things quite a bit. Nevertheless, I believe Judge Sotomayor and her fellow panel judges would have better served the public by issuing a more comprehensive decision regarding their logic in affirming the district court's decision in favor of the city of New Haven.

In closing, I wish to make a few remarks about the judicial confirmation process.

Judge Sotomayor is the third nominee to the Supreme Court to come before the Senate since I came to the Senate in 1999. For both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, then-Senator Obama promoted an ``empathy standard'' to determine if he would vote for these nominees. Then- Senator Obama said:

The critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the

judge's heart.

Such an analysis is no analysis at all. In fact, it flies in the face of the meritocracy in which Judge Sotomayor succeeded. All of us in this Chamber can examine the academic credentials of and prior judicial decisions authored by a nominee and determine whether he or she is qualified. We cannot examine and judge what is in the heart.

Let me be clear. If I applied Senator Obama's standard, I would not be voting for Judge Sotomayor, his nominee. The President was wrong. I think his standard makes the whole nomination process an exercise in partisan politics. We need less politics in the judicial selection process and the judiciary in general, not more. It has become too politicized in the last several years. It is something about which all of us should be concerned.

I urge all my colleagues to reject the Obama empathy standard--just as Judge Sotomayor rejected it, just as I am rejecting it--and return to a standard where it is the qualifications of the nominee we judge, not the politics or heart of that nominee.

Judge Sotomayor is not the nominee I would have selected if I were President, but making a nomination is not my role today. My role is to examine her qualifications to determine if she is fit to serve. Again, in reviewing her academic and professional record, taking into account her temperament and integrity, it is clear to me she is qualified to serve as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the passage of the Car, Allowance Rebate System, CARS, commonly referred to as Cash for Clunkers. CARS provides both a direct and indirect economic benefit to the State of Ohio by supporting the manufacturing of automobiles, automotive parts suppliers, and auto dealers, as well as the many businesses that support these companies. This program is providing valuable jobs and much needed revenue--a direct stimulus--to the State. Furthermore, Ohio car buyers responded positively and Ohio has been one of the top recipients under the CARS program. That is why I am asking my colleagues to reject amendments that would prevent the program from operating until September when the House of Representatives is scheduled to reconvene. If the Senate adopts even one amendment, the bill will be on hold until the mid-September. In some instances, if these same amendments were considered as stand-alone legislation or as amendments to other legislation, I may have supported them, but because these amendments hold hostage the continuation of the CARS I will oppose anything that would keep the Senate from transferring these funds.

The Senate's decision to continue funding the cash for clunkers program will allow consumers to purchase new cars, delivering a real economic stimulus to our Sates. As evidenced by the extraordinary response to the program thus far, this is a win-win. It provides much needed jobs and resources to our states and promotes fuel efficient cars to benefit our environment, reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I am thankful the additional $2 billion for this program is being taken from the already-enacted stimulus bill, which I voted against earlier this year. Unfortunately, programs that would provide real stimulus like cash for clunkers and robust highway and infrastructure investments were not part of the original stimulus package. These types of direct tangible investments provide not only jobs through dealers, manufacturers, and auto suppliers, but usable assets for taxpayers. I am hopeful that this program will continue to provide much-needed relief to the Ohio's automotive manufacturers.

Madam President, I ask that the Voinovich-Carper amendment No. 1841 be called up.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I thank Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Bennett for allowing me to bring this amendment to the floor.

This bipartisan amendment renews authorization granted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the General Services Administration in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill that allows GSA to acquire additional permanent office space near the Nuclear Regulatory Commission headquarters location in Rockville, MD. We need to renew this authorization in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations because the current lease negotiations will likely extend beyond September 30, the end of fiscal year 2009.

This is a fairly straightforward and simple amendment, but I want to take this opportunity to underscore the importance of the original intent of the authorizing language.

Having served as either the chair or ranking on the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee for the past 8 years side by side with my good friend, the senior Senator from Delaware, I take great pride in the fact that the NRC has become one of the best regulatory agencies in the world.

Senator Carper and I, together with other members on the Environment and Public Works Committee, have worked hard to provide the NRC with the necessary resources to do its job; that is, ensuring safe operation of the 104 operating nuclear powerplants while conducting licensing reviews of the 17 applications for construction and operation of 26 new reactors. That may sound like some new information, and it is. We have 17 applications filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for construction and operation of 26 new reactors.

With three pieces of legislation included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we were able to help NRC hire more than 1,000 new workers and rehire retirees in the last 4 years to meet the increasing demand. The rehiring was to train new people who are being brought on board.

Now we need to follow through and provide NRC with adequate, colocated headquarters office space to ensure maximum efficiency and effectiveness. I must say that the subcommittee has looked at this over and over again, and we have concluded that it is very necessary to have them have space in the same vicinity so they can more adequately and more efficiently run the operation.

Lately, we have been hearing a lot about how we need to increase the use of nuclear energy if we are to achieve our energy independence, reduce greenhouse gases, and create jobs. I would point out that the NRC is at the center of all of this in the midst of reviewing those 17 applications for 26 new reactors.

Providing NRC with the tools necessary to achieve regulatory stability, efficiency, and effectiveness not only makes sense, it is the job of Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, since there is no further debate on amendment No. 1841, I ask for its adoption.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I would like to congratulate the members of the 1969 Class of Harvey S. Firestone High School in Akron, OH, on the 40th anniversary of their graduation. Graduates of Firestone's Class of '69 have gone on to become distinguished and accomplished educators, scientists, doctors, artists, entertainers, athletes, public officials, entrepreneurs, and moms and dads. This is a tribute not only to those students, but also to their teachers who gave lavishly of their time, attention and knowledge to ensure a sound foundation for almost 400 young men and women.

The State of Ohio has been long recognized for its excellence in education, and the 1969 graduates of Firestone High continue to leave a legacy that is a testimony to that excellence. This weekend these graduates will travel from all parts of the country and beyond to reminisce, and rekindle friendships. I ask Members of the Senate to join me today in congratulating the Harvey S. Firestone Class of 1969.

Who is managing this side of the debate?

I ask unanimous consent that I take some of the time of Senator Bayh, who is supposed to be managing.

Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of the competitive sourcing for the Joint Strike Fighter engines. Senator Bayh's compromise amendment continues our support for competition for the Joint Strike Fighter engines and restores the funding for the Marine Corps helicopters that I know a number of my colleagues are concerned about.

From my understanding of what happened is that in the Armed Services Committee, Senator Bayh was concerned that the committee did not have money in the budget for competition for the Joint Strike Fighter. As a result of that, he moved to amend and took money away from the helicopters that Senator Lieberman is so concerned about.

Today we are here because the Senator from Connecticut wants to restore that money for those helicopters, and at the same time, those of us who are concerned about competition would like to see the money included so we can continue competition for the Joint Strike Fighter.

As most of you know, I am a former Governor and mayor who has been an ardent champion of fiscal responsibility and total quality management in government. I am not a Johnnie-come-lately to this whole business of efficiency in terms of our defense budget.

Since 1990, the Department of Defense acquisition management has been under GAO's high risk list, and that is why, in my capacity as chair and now ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Management, I strongly supported reforms at the Defense Department that address contracting weaknesses and promote good business practices to support our men and women in uniform.

I want everyone to understand, this is not the F-22. This is about competition, fiscal responsibility, and good government management. When I came to the Senate, I remember Dwight D. Eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex. I must say, since I have been a Senator, he had it wrong. It is the military-industrial-congressional complex.

If you watch how things are done on the floor of the Senate, a lot of it has got to do with protecting the business in our States, even though in some instances it is not in the best interests of our country. I am proud to say, in spite of the fact that in my State we lost about 500 jobs, I voted to eliminate the F-22.

That is what we should see more of here. But too often, when we make our decisions, it has got more to do with the corporations in our respective States and the jobs than it has to do with what is in the best interests of the country or what is fiscally responsible.

I think all of us should be concerned about it. I am going to leave here at the end of next year. But it seems to me if we do not start paying more attention to that, we are going to continue to be in trouble.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee this past May, the Government Accountability Office stated that competition, competition for the Joint Strike Fighter engine will yield long-term cost savings for taxpayers.

Does that mean it is not going to cost a little more at the front end because we are going to have more than one company competing for that engine? Of course it is going to cost a little bit more. But that testimony GAO gave cited an example of engine competition for the F-16. OK? We had competition for the F-16. Let's remember that this Joint Strike Fighter is going to be the fighter for all of the Federal agencies. It is going to be with us for the next 25 or 30 years.

That testimony for the F-16 said: It reduced engine costs for the F- 16 by

over 20 percent. In other words, by putting a little money up front and having competition between the companies that wanted to do the engines, we, over the contract, saved 20 percent.

I commend to my colleagues the GAO testimony before the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives. This is quite a report. For those who are really interested in the subject, I ask them to read this or have their staff look at it. It is entitled ``Joint Strike Fighter Strong Risk Management Essential as Program Enters Most Challenging Phase.''

It is interesting the way the company that was originally chosen to do this has had cost overruns even in the beginning--and the two companies that were competing with them have been on budget and on time for the Record. By the way, it is right here in this GAO report. All you have to do is read the report. It is there.

Let me read what the report says:

A competitive strategy has the potential for savings equal

to or exceeding that amount across the life cycle of the

engine. Prior experience indicates that it is reasonable to

assume that competition on the Joint Strike Fighter engine

program could yield savings. . . . As a result, we remain

confident that competitive pressures could yield enough

savings to offset the [upfront] costs of [development] over

the JSF program's life.

Let me repeat that:

As a result, we remain confident that competitive pressures

could yield enough savings to offset the [upfront] costs of

[development] over the [Joint Strike Fighter] program's life.

Most of us understand competition.

We have laws against antitrust, trying to make sure that one company doesn't get an advantage over another. I think most of my colleagues understand competition brings out the best and the lowest price.

The GAO testimony goes on to address the impact competition has on quality of product and incentives to perform:

Our prior work, along with studies by the [Department of

Defense] and others, indicate there are a number of

nonfinancial benefits that may result from competition,

including better performance, increased reliability, and

improved contractor responsiveness.

I heard the Senator from Arizona speak eloquently about all of the overruns and expenses and everything else about it. If he were here, I would say to him: Hey, what we want to do is have some competition on this engine so we get the best price, the best quality, the most responsiveness.

We don't need the GAO to confirm common sense. We all know that competition leads to lower cost, improved performance, increased reliability, and helps to keep our contractors honest. Without a competitive engine, over 90 percent of our fighter aircraft will be powered by one engine by 2030. Think about that. One company will have that contract. Giving an extraordinarily large contract to a single vendor without competition is reckless and irresponsible. Our government has an obligation to keep our contractors honest, and the surest way to achieve that honesty is through competition. I urge colleagues to support the Bayh compromise amendment that preserves competitive sourcing for the Joint Strike Fighter engine.

We have an opportunity. I can understand the Senator from Connecticut was upset because we took money out of the helicopters to maintain the competition. What Senator Bayh is trying to do is come up with an amendment that will restore the money so we can buy the helicopters and, at the same time, maintain competition on the Joint Strike Fighter.

I urge my colleagues to study this issue. Please, if they have a chance, they or their staffs ought to look at this report by the GAO. It substantiates the reasons why we are so ardent in terms of our support for competition for the Joint Strike Fighter.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member for their leadership and courtesy regarding my amendment to provide budget authority for the National Guard--State Partnership Program. I understand that this amendment as accepted would provide the program with budget authority for fiscal year 2010. I urge the committee to consult with the Department of Defense, our combatant commanders in the field, and our State adjutant generals regarding the efficacy of permanent authority for the program as the committee prepares next year's defense bill.

Madam President, I do not think there is a Senator in this body who has talked more about deficits or our national debt than the senior Senator from Ohio.

Senator Lieberman and I have a bill in to create a commission to deal with tax reform and entitlements. I have had a bill in called the SAFE Commission for the last 4 years: Saving America's Future Economy. There is no one more aware of where we are. We will have a deficit this year, I believe, of over $2 trillion when you take into consideration the amount of money we are borrowing from our governmental trust funds.

That being said, I respectfully oppose the amendment offered by my good friend, the Senator from Arizona. This amendment seeks to strike the requirement in the bill for $39.7 million for the Advanced Training Center.

This Advanced Training Center is designed to serve the specialized needs of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It officially opened in August of 2005. There may be some people who object to the fact that it is in West Virginia, but the fact is it is in West Virginia.

This year alone, the Center will provide advanced training to over 3,200 U.S. Customs and Border Protection employees.

We have already mentioned we have increased the number of these employees substantially to do what most people want us to do; that is, to protect the border and to go after those individuals who are illegal immigrants. There is no question about that. But I also know from my work on the Governmental Affairs Committee and my Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, in the Federal workforce, the people we hire have to be trained. You just cannot bring them on. You have to train them.

So this is a critical training facility for frontline employees. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Management and Budget have endorsed the expansion of this facility as well when they approved and sent forward to Congress their 5-year master facility plan.

This is not a boondoggle. This is not a waste of money. This is something to support a facility that is there and needs to be expanded because we have decided we want to hire a lot more employees. When you hire employees, you have to provide them the training. And that is exactly what this is doing.

Again, I wish to emphasize, if we are going to secure the border, it is going to cost a lot of money, including training the people we are going to hire.

So we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I would be remiss if I didn't thank, first of all, the chairman of our subcommittee, Robert Byrd, for the cooperation he has shown me and his staff. I particularly thank Senator Murray. I think this is my first opportunity to do one of these bills on the floor of the Senate, and it has been an interesting experience for me.

I also particularly thank Chuck for his work, and my great staff here, because without them, we wouldn't have been able to get this job done. I thank all of you for your cooperation in making this all happen.

Mr. President, we oppose this amendment. The amendment would force the Department of Homeland Security to construct hundreds of additional miles of pedestrian fencing beyond that which is determined as necessary. The Department of Homeland Security has studied and analyzed the tactical infrastructure needs, including pedestrian fencing or vehicle fencing along that border. It has built or is in the process of constructing the miles of pedestrian fencing that are needed or that they believe is necessary.

The fact is, this body, when we changed the law not to be prospective, we did not detail the location and type of fencing. Instead, we left it to the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Not only is this amendment wrong because it overturns the U.S. Customs and Border Service determination of tactical infrastructure needs along the border, it would be incredibly costly. It would outstrip the funds provided for this purpose by requiring additional fencing. Some miles of fencing have an average cost of $5 billion per mile.

I urge we vote no on this amendment.

Madam. President, I thank Senator Durbin. I would like to acknowledge the cooperation we received from Senator Byrd and his staff. We are pleased Senator Byrd is out of the hospital and recuperating at home. I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Illinois has stepped in to pinch-hit for him this morning.

I think the Senator from Illinois has done an outstanding job of covering the details of the bill. I would like to concentrate on some of the highlights I think need to be underscored.

The bill recommends a total of $44.3 billion in appropriations to support programs and activities of the Department of Homeland Security. Of this amount, $42.7 billion is for discretionary spending. This is roughly $145 million less than the President's total discretionary request and is consistent with the subcommittee's spending allocation.

In addition, $1.4 billion is provided for Coast Guard retired pay-- the only mandatory funding in the bill--and $241.5 million is provided for Coast Guard overseas contingency operations, the same amount as requested by the President in the Department of Defense budget to be transferred to the Coast Guard and instead of being appropriated in the Defense Appropriations bill is being appropriated here.

The bill includes significant resources: for border security and enforcement of our immigration laws, for continued improvements in security at our Nation's airports and modes of surface transportation, for the Coast Guard's operations and Deepwater Program recapitalization efforts, for helping our citizens prepare for and recover from natural disasters, and for equipping and training our Nation's first responders.

As Senator Durbin has indicated, there is much in this bill to recommend. I am pleased the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security understands we have done our best to fund her priorities. I will not list all the bill's funding recommendations, but I do want to note some.

Full funding is provided for border security, including the funds to support 20,063 border patrol agents; 21,12 customs and border protection officers; 33,400 detention beds; and $800 million for continued work on the virtual border fence and improved radio communications.

Starting in fiscal year 2005, significant increases have been provided for border security and immigration enforcement. This bill alone provides an increase of $880 million from the fiscal year 2009 level, excluding emergency appropriations. Progress has been made with these investments.

Fewer people are illegally crossing our borders. This can be seen in the decrease in apprehensions of aliens along our borders--from 1,198,075 in fiscal year 2005 to 723,825 in fiscal year 2008. In other words, we have made it more difficult for 474,250 illegal aliens to cross our borders. More fencing, roads, and personnel have allowed the border patrol to increase the number of miles over which it has effective control--from 241 miles in October 2005 to 625 miles in October 2008. Additional agents and detention beds have allowed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to increase total removals of aliens--from 246,431 removals in fiscal year 2005 to 347,184 in fiscal year 2008. We are making progress but we still have a long way to go and at great expense.

In particular, I am pleased that the bill includes funds above the request to implement a biometric air exit capability. As the chief Senate sponsor of the Secure Travel and Counterterrorism Partnership Act of 2007, expanding and improving the Visa Waiver Program is one of my top priorities. The Visa Waiver Program has become an important national security tool because under that law, countries who participate in the program are required to share information on terrorists and criminals, report lost and stolen passports, and maintain high counterterrorism and document security practices. Since enactment of this law, 8 new countries have been accepted into the program and we are seeing improvements in the security practices of the 27 countries that were already participating.

I have just returned from Lithuania and Latvia, where I was joined by several other Members of the Senate, including Senator Durbin. Lithuania and Latvia are two countries that were recently admitted into the visa waiver program. From a public diplomacy point of view, it has been a home run and has been well received by government officials and citizens alike.

I was up in Latvia. They pointed out to me that General Mullen was in Latvia, which should have been the biggest thing in the newspaper the next day, that he was there. The thing that blew him away was the fact that Latvia was approved for visa waiver status. It was so well received by the people of Latvia.

I must note however the two areas which continue to be of concern to me. One is the way this administration has budgeted for disasters. The President's fiscal year 2010 request for disaster relief is only $2 billion. We know now from FEMA estimates that this is not enough to pay for the declared disasters already on the books. Based on current needs, an appropriation of $5.8 billion is required. I understand we cannot afford that within the discretionary spending limits for this bill, but I am hopeful this is addressed in future budgets.

This administration has worked hard to break the cycle of requesting emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet no one has suggested fixing the way we budget for natural disasters. Last year alone, $11.757 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations were provided for disaster relief.

We cannot continue to ``kick the can down the road,'' relying on supplemental emergency appropriations to pay for known costs. Hurricane Katrina was a catastrophic event. Exceptions were made to regulations and policies to speed assistance to those struggling to recover from the enormity of the losses. But now these are becoming the standard rather than an ``exception to the rule,'' and the Federal taxpayers are picking up an ever increasing share of disaster recovery costs.

It is kind of interesting that at the time of Katrina I commented we were doing some things we ordinarily do not do in a FEMA environment and predicted that what we were doing at Katrina would become the role model for other disasters that have been experienced by States. The fact is, more and more States are now asking for

more and more FEMA money, saying: You did it in Katrina, why can't you do it in Texas? Why can't you do it wherever else we have a disaster? This has to change if we are going to handle Federal spending and do something about the deficit.

In addition, this bill provides almost $16 billion for border and immigration enforcement. That does not even include Coast Guard funding to protect our maritime borders. This is a 99.6-percent increase for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and US-VISIT from fiscal year 2004 levels in the first Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act.

It is a significant increase. I think the citizens of our country should know that. They have been saying, for a long time, that we have not been doing the job in enforcing the security of our borders. I must tell them we are doing a much better job than ever before because we are allocating the resources to get the job done.

As we have increased the resources for border I have often wondered if there was another way we can secure our borders and deal with 11 or so million illegal immigrants other than by drastically increasing the resources for border and immigration enforcement. In fiscal year 2008, the Federal Government removed 347,184 individuals. In fiscal year 2009, $5.6 billion is available to locate, detain, and remove unauthorized aliens. At the current pace of removals, it could require a further investment of $272 billion and 31 years to locate and remove the estimated 11 million unauthorized aliens in the United States. We must ask whether we are willing or can afford to make that kind of investment in enforcement rather than investing time in comprehensive immigration reform.

I appreciate very much the courtesies of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and his staff and all members of the Appropriations Committee during our preparation of this bill. I believe it reflects our careful consideration of the President's budget request for the Department and our best effort to address the Department's resource requirements of the Department for the coming fiscal year. I look forward to considering amendments which Senators may suggest to the bill and to work throughout the appropriations process to ensure the Department has the funds to carry out its duties and responsibilities.

In closing, I would point out that the President's budget was received on May 7 and the Appropriations Committee is working diligently to move forward on the passage of our 12 appropriations bills. Two of the 12 fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills were reported by the committee on June 18--including this Homeland Security bill--and 2 more were reported on June 25. Another five of the appropriations bills are scheduled to be considered and reported by the committee this week--two this afternoon and another three on Thursday.

The House considered and adopted its version of the fiscal year 2010 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill on June 24. It is unfortunate that Senate consideration of this bill could not have occurred that same week, which would have put us in a position now to go to conference with the House.

Expeditious consideration of the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills by the Senate is required if the Congress is to complete its work on all twelve of the appropriations bills by the October 1 start of the fiscal year. I have long been concerned about our failure to complete our appropriations work on time and the consequences of inaction, and I intend to speak at greater length on that during our consideration of this bill.

But, I do want to note here that a letter, dated March 24, 2009, to the majority leader, which included the signatures of all Republican Members, asked that the legislative schedule for this session:

. . . allocate an appropriate amount of time for the Senate

to consider, vote and initiate the conference process on each

of the 12 appropriations bills independently through a

deliberative and transparent process on the Senate floor.

The letter goes on to point out that:

For a variety of reasons, over the past several years, the

Senate has failed to debate, amend and pass each of the bills

separately prior to the end of the fiscal year. Far too often

this has resulted in the creation of omnibus appropriations

bills that have been brought to floor so late in the fiscal

year that Senators have been forced to either pass a

continuing resolution, shut down government or consider an

omnibus bill. These omnibus bills have not allowed for

adequate public review and have clouded what should otherwise

be a transparent process.

The letter further points out that President Obama, on March 11, 2009, said that he expects future spending bills to be

. . . debated and voted on in an orderly way and sent to

[his] desk without delay or obstruction so that we don't face

another massive, last minute omnibus bill like this one.

So let us proceed with this bill and debate and dispose of amendments Senators may wish to offer to it without unnecessary delay to allow us to complete our appropriations work this session. And, I would like to add that it is incumbent on our side of the aisle to make sure our amendments are relevant and germane.

I recommend this bill to my colleagues for their consideration and support, and I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, it is time for Congress to join forces and unite in a bipartisan way to help the President deal with the unbelievable challenges he has domestically and internationally. One easy way to help our Nation is by passing our appropriations bills by September 30. Our getting it done this year is urgent because of the state of our economy and the impact Federal spending has on that economy. Our reliance on continuing resolutions to fund the Federal Government continues to plague Congress and has a cascading effect on government agencies and the citizens they serve.

In recent decades, it has become common for appropriations bills to be enacted after the start of the fiscal year, during the last quarter of the calendar year, or even in the next session of Congress, as was the case this year. Repeatedly managing by continuing resolution is inefficient. It results in wasteful spending, disruption and chaos in the operations of Federal programs, and dramatic productivity slowdowns. This is not a good record for either party and is an irresponsible approach to managing our limited resources. It has to stop.

Last year, because the Senate did not do its job, agencies were rushed to spend their budgets before the end of the fiscal year and used overtime to ensure requests were processed before midnight on September 30, making it ripe for overspending as agencies stockpiled to try to meet future needs. This also means fewer dollars being returned to the Treasury to help reduce our growing budget deficit.

We need to get back to basics to solve it. This is one problem the Congress can solve, and we need to do it this year. Congress may hold the power of the purse, but we undermine our credibility by starving good managers and agencies of necessary resources and by turning a blind eye to failing programs. This is about more than allocating funds. It is about good management and good public policy. I can assure you, as a county commissioner, mayor, and Governor, if the appropriations were not done on time we would have been run out of town for not doing our job.

Inaction causes chaos in the operations of our Federal Government. Continuing resolutions do exactly what their name implies: they continue funding at prior year levels, without regard to whether changes in funding are necessary or appropriate. As a result, agency program managers are now in the untenable position of having to manage on the prior year's budget, which often results in a loss of productivity and a waste of taxpayer dollars. Imagine if these same program managers could spend their time instead on our current economic situation, ensuring that the stimulus funds are being spent wisely and appropriately.

Programs which cannot justify the level of funding they used to have, and ought to be cut, will continue to get the level of funding they were getting. Likewise, programs for which increased need has been demonstrated, and which therefore should get increased funding, will continue to be funded at the prior year's level, leaving the increased need unaddressed.

Since 1990, the Government Accountability Office has issued its biennial high-risk report, which examines the challenges faced by Federal programs and operations and recommends ways to improve their performance and accountability. Many of the programs on the GAO high- risk list are dysfunctional and fail to deliver the intended services to the taxpayer. In other instances, the Federal Government is wasting taxpayer dollars that could be better used for higher priority programs or cutting the deficit.

Imagine if we were able to dedicate 1 week--or even 1 day--per month as a body debating solutions to the challenges identified by GAO instead of debating whether and when to proceed on appropriations bills or throwing together a continuing resolution to ensure we avoid the embarrassment of a government shutdown.

This is not a case of benign neglect. We have become overly reliant on past practice and refuse to make the end-to-end budget process a priority. Continuing appropriations acts have become commonplace and, unfortunately, fully integrated into the process. The end result is funding uncertainty--not because the money is not there but because Congress cannot join in a bipartisan manner and hammer out an agreement on how money should be spent. No business would manage its affairs in this manner, and neither should the Federal Government. As I said, the Federal Government is the only level of government that gets away with it.

I think few in the Senate recognize the adverse impact continuing resolutions have on agencies where budgets rely heavily on personnel. Hiring freezes, cuts in training budgets have lasting effects. It is irresponsible for us not to provide appropriations on time to those we have asked to provide services to the American people and give them gigantic excuses to not perform.

Our inaction also has an impact on program management. Federal public servants spend countless hours preparing detailed budget justifications for our review. We reward their hard work by asking them to spend their time figuring out how to manage under last year's budget. Imagine if these people could spend their time managing programs instead of figuring out how to operate under a continuing resolution, including completion of reprogramming requests.

Managing by continuing resolution has the effect of delaying construction,

reducing overall efficiency, wasting time and paper resources, and disallowing any new starts in procurement. Fortune 100 companies do not walk away from difficult budget choices by taking a pass to the next fiscal year. Neither does Main Street USA. Regardless of whether you subscribe to the belief that CRs save money, this is no way to run an organization. It is part of our obligation to the American people to ensure our scarce resources are given to projects that produce results.

I want to share a few examples of the true impact of continuing resolutions, taken from a memo prepared by the Congressional Research Service and hearings before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Let's take the Department of Education. The Impact Aid Program is an elementary and secondary education program that does not receive forward funding or advance appropriations and, therefore, is more easily affected by an interim continuing resolution. Payments for children with disabilities are delayed when the Department of Education is operating under a continuing resolution.

USAID: The delay of funding of the President's Malaria Initiative, which was enacted in order to reduce deaths due to malaria by 50 percent, lasted until February 15, 2007, 5 months or 138 days into fiscal year 2007. Doing the math, this delay in funding relates to the loss of, say, 198,000 lives unnecessarily. In other words, by delaying it, the money was not there. We did not get the job done, and this resulted in the deaths of individuals.

NASA: On June 8, 2009, the Federal Times reported the following from NASA Administrator Michael Griffin:

Any time Congress passes a continuing resolution that holds

agencies to their current spending levels at a time when the

economy is experiencing inflation translates into a budget

cut. And so we will be cutting the budget at NASA and the

only question is how much. . . . And then the second

question, after how much is decided, is will the continuing

resolution be broadly applied and left to the discretion of

agency heads to implement or will special programs be

targeted to be either favored or disfavored.

FEMA: In fiscal year 2008, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which ``provides emergency food and shelter to needy individuals,'' did not receive funds under the CR. Thus, the program did not have funds available for communities and their respective homeless provider agencies during what many view as critical winter months until February 26, 2008, or 149 days into fiscal year 2008.

The judiciary: The judiciary has had to resort to hiring freezes or furloughing employees under continuing resolutions. In fiscal year 2004, the judiciary reduced 1,350 positions, with probation and pretrial services receiving significant cuts.

HUD: During fiscal year--I am just giving you examples that have been pointed out by CRS. During fiscal year 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development had to temporarily suspend the General Insurance and Special Risk Insurance Fund of the Federal Housing Administration because the continuing resolution did not provide a sufficient credit subsidy to continue with the programs. During the suspension, HUD was unable to meet the needs of the borrowers who would ordinarily be served by the respective programs, which created uncertainty among the lenders and potential borrowers. Mr. President, I think most of us have seen what happens when we have uncertainty in our mortgage system.

The Treasury Department: Continuing resolutions in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 limited and delayed the IRS's ability to implement improvements in the taxpayer service. Also, these continuing resolutions prevented the agency from making job offers to highly qualified candidates until enactment of a full year's appropriation.

Just jerk them around.

Research and development: Most research and development programs continue to receive funding at the prior year's level when operating under a continuing resolution. However, this funding mechanism can only support existing R&D priorities rather than shifting to new ones because only existing programs retain funding. New and emerging technologies must be funded in real time.

The Social Security Administration: Operating under a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2010 will hamper efforts to reduce backlogs in the agency's disability program, which would result in decreased efficiency. Also, in previous years continuing resolutions caused the agency to implement a hiring freeze that contributed to service delivery problems. While Commissioner Astrue has gone to great lengths to send additional resources, for example, to my home State, Ohio still has people waiting more than 500 days for a decision on their Social Security disability claim.

I was very critical of SSA. I started looking back on the continuing resolutions that were passed. It was a chaotic situation. They were not able to keep the people they had. They were not able to hire more people, and we have a 500-day wait now. I am sure the Presiding Officer gets the same complaints from his people that they cannot get their disability appeals heard.

DHS: In testimony before the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, the Department of Homeland Security's Deputy Procurement Officer, Richard Gunderson, spoke to the impact continuing resolutions have on the key homeland security programs. Gunderson testified:

A CR would stop those programs in their tracks and we would

not be able to grow the way that everybody is saying that we

need to grow.

Mr. President, there are a lot more examples of what I am talking about. I think this has to be the year we do our job. The Senator from Nevada, our leader, and the Senator from Kentucky, our minority leader, have both publicly stated that we need to do our job on time. As I mentioned earlier, the need for it is more urgent than ever before.

If I were the President of the United States today, I would probably look at what the Congress is doing, and I think I would say: One of the greatest gifts you can give me, one of the greatest gifts you can give our country, is to do your work on time so we do not have this chaotic situation we have had for so many years.

None of our hands are clean. None of our hands are clean. I have been here when we have deliberately not passed appropriations with the idea that maybe our guy is going to get elected President or we are going to get the majority in the Senate or the Congress and so then we can tweak it the way we want to because a majority is no longer in the majority.

This game has been played for too long around here, and it is about time we recognized it and did something about it.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that Carol Cribbs on the Appropriations Committee staff be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security Appropriations bill and any votes in relation thereto.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak as in morning business for 20 minutes.

Madam President, I rise today to again call attention to the irresponsible and reckless fiscal path we find ourselves on as a nation and to urge my colleagues to act now to take the first step toward meaningful, comprehensive tax and entitlement reform through the enactment of the Securing America's Future Economy Commission Act, which I introduced with Senator Joe Lieberman.

I urge my colleagues to take the time to read a recent letter from Senator

Lieberman and I urging their support of this legislation.

The SAFE Commission has broad bipartisan support outside of Congress, including the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the Business Roundtable, the Concord Coalition, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Brookings Institution and the Heritage Foundation--I think if you get the Concord Coalition and the Heritage Foundation to support a piece of legislation, it has to be pretty bipartisan and fair--and also the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. All of these organizations back the SAFE Commission concept as the way to tackle tax reform and our entitlement crisis.

I say to the Presiding Officer, as you may know, recently Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao publicly voiced his concern about the security of the ``huge amount of money'' China has invested in the United States, saying, ``To be honest, I am definitely a little worried.'' He then went on to call on the United States to ``maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China's assets.'' I hope this frightens you as much as it frightens me. China is the largest foreign creditor of the United States, holding an estimated $1 trillion in U.S. Government debt. Though it may be unlikely due to the complex interdependent relationship we have with China, if China were to call in that debt, sell off its holdings, or direct its foreign investments away from the United States, the impact on our economy and our national security would be devastating. I have been saying for years that we cannot allow countries that control our debt to control our future.

The fact is foreign creditors have provided 70 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001. As a result, 51 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors--mostly foreign central banks. That is going to be increased significantly because of all the borrowing we are doing. These lenders are starting to express significant concerns about the status of our fiscal situation. To be frank, they should be concerned.

Our spending is out of control. As a result, our debt is skyrocketing. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, gross national debt stood at $5.6 trillion, or 61 percent of our GDP. The Obama administration recently projected the national debt to more than double to $12.7 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2009. From 2008 to 2009 alone, the Federal debt will increase 27 percent, boosting the country's debt-to-income ratio--or national debt as a percentage of GDP--from 70 percent last year to 89 percent this year.

As shown on this chart, here is where we were back when I came to the Senate in 1999. In 2008, last year, the national debt as a percentage of GDP was 70 percent. Today, it is at 89 percent. You can see we are going to be very close to 100 percent of our GDP on our national debt. I call this the Pac Man that is eating up our revenue--particularly the interest. We are going to pay money that could be used for other things.

Alarmingly, the figures I just mentioned do not count our accumulated, long-term financial obligations. The Peterson Foundation recently pointed out that the Federal Government has accumulated $56.4 trillion in total liabilities and unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security as of September 30, 2008. That works out--listen to this--to $483,000 per American household or $184,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country to pay for these unfunded obligations. In other words, we have $56.4 trillion in total liabilities and unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security. It is an unfunded liability. If you look at it per household, it is $483,000 per household, and if you look at it per individual, for every man, woman, and child in the United States, it is $184,000.

To be completely fair to President Obama, our annual deficit and growing national debt have been problems for some time now. And, folks, I have come to the floor of the Senate time and time again to talk about paying down debt, balancing our budget, and so forth.

To my knowledge, President Bush never once mentioned the debt in any one of his State of the Union Addresses to Congress. But under the Obama administration, we have exacerbated the problem with an Omnibus appropriations bill that includes $408 billion in nonemergency funding, a $787 billion stimulus bill, and a 10-year proposed budget where the lowest deficit for a single year is larger than any annual deficit from the end of World War II to President Obama's inauguration.

I know we are going through some tough times. Over the past year, we have been hit by an economic avalanche that started in housing, spread to the financial and credit markets, and then continued onward to every corner of our economy. I know it well. I am a Senator from Ohio. We are spending money to get out of this economic mess, but we cannot allow that to be an excuse to continue our reckless fiscal path. We have to start finding ways to work harder and smarter to do more with less. It does not take an economist to realize our course is unsustainable. I know it, the Obama administration knows it, the American people know it.

The Obama administration knows we can no longer ignore this crisis. Peter Orszag, whom I consider a friend, the Obama administration's OMB Director, has even said:

I don't want to sound like the boy crying wolf, but it is a

fact that, given the path that we are on, two things: One is

we will ultimately wind up with a financial crisis that is

substantially more severe than even what we are facing today

if we don't alter the path of Federal spending; and secondly,

that if we were on that path in the future and something like

we are experiencing today occurred, we would have much less

maneuvering room to fight those fires, because we will have

already depleted the fire truck.

And I am disappointed that as OMB Director he has forgotten his commitment to entitlement and tax reform he so boldly and loudly called for when he was CBO Director. You would think a change in title would not cause such a memory loss on as important an issue as the financial health of our country. To me, it can only mean one thing: that Peter Orszag's boss, President Obama, must not be serious about addressing the growing national debt or, worse, does not understand our fiscal crisis or, even worse than that, that he just does not care.

Just last Friday, the Washington Post ran an opinion piece taking the administration to task for lacking a plan on just how we start to dig our country out of this financial crisis. The article details Treasury Secretary Geithner's trip to Beijing 2 weeks ago, where he went to reassure China--the world's largest holder of our Treasury debt, as I mentioned--that lending money to the U.S. Government is still a wise thing to do.

Mr. Geithner insisted that:

In the United States, we are putting in place the

foundations for restoring fiscal sustainability.

In a moment that all Americans should consider a wake-up call, Mr. Geithner was met with laughter--laughter--when he told a group of Chinese students that their country's assets were very safe in Washington.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this Washington Post article. The title of it is ``No Laughing Matter, Why the U.S. needs to get serious now about long-term budget deficits.''

Madam President, this week, as you know, President Obama announced a plan to reenact statutory pay-as-you-go, pay-go. Now, what is ``pay-go''? Pay-go basically is this: If you want to spend more money, you either have to find other spending you are going to reduce or, in the alternative, you are going to have to raise taxes to pay for it.

Unfortunately, the President's plan exempts things like the 2001-2003 tax cuts, patching the alternative minimum tax, updating physicians' payments in Medicare--and last but not least, modifying the estate tax. These expenses would be exempt from pay-go.

Folks, I believe this is intellectually dishonest. This does not reflect the high standards the President has set for his administration. In my opinion, it is more like the smoke and mirrors of the past that got us into the mess we find ourselves in today.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, puts it like this:

It is like quitting drinking--

She was referring to the President's pay-go announcement. Here is what she says--

It is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for

beer and hard liquor. Exempting these measures from pay-go

would increase the 10-year deficit by over $2.5 trillion.

That's not fiscal responsibility.

Today, I am reiterating my call for President Obama and Congress to enact the first pillar of meaningful tax and entitlement reform through the enactment of the SAFE Commission Act. I am asking my colleagues and their staffs to step up and look at this legislation and read the ``Dear Colleague'' letter Senator Lieberman and I sent this last week with materials from the Peterson Foundation. Those materials, for a Senator or for staff members, lay out what I am talking about today. In addition, there is a DVD that is called IOUSA that was put together by the Peterson Foundation. I think it takes about an hour to look at it, but I don't know of anything that is out there today that depicts our financial crisis as well as that DVD does.

The SAFE Commission we are talking about would create a vehicle, much like we do for the BRAC process, to take on the tough issues of Social Security, tax reform, and creating, by a vote of 13 out of 20 members-- there would be 20 members on the Commission; 2 of them would be from the administration, but it would take 13 out of 20--and if you have 13 out of 20, the recommendations would be fast-tracked through a special process and brought to the floor of both Chambers.

In other words, we would give it expedited procedure and then we would have to either vote up or down, just as we do on the BRAC process. It would break the logjam in Washington and show the American people and the world that we are serious about getting this Nation back on track.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why President Obama doesn't support this concept. I know he is getting a hard time from Speaker Pelosi and from several other Members in the House of Representatives, although Steny Hoyer is in favor of the commission approach to solving our entitlement and tax reform crisis. We all know we can't get this done through the regular order of business. We know it. We would not be able to get it done. The proof of it is we haven't been able to do it thus far, so we are going to need the Commission. Everybody understands we are going to need it.

I know the President wants to move on climate change. But he has to know that from a substantive point of view and a political point of view, he is going to have to do something about this long-term financial crisis in which we found ourselves. It would seem to me he could go forward with climate change, he could go forward with health care reform, and get the Commission formed. It will take the Commission at least a year to finish its business.

Think of this: If the Commission is able to get 13 out of 20 members to come back with a bipartisan solution to dealing with tax reform and entitlement reform, that would be wonderful. It would take that issue off the President's plate. In other words, sooner or later, our President and his party are going to have to face up to the fact that the people of America are really worried--and so are the people of the world--about us doing something about tax reform and entitlement reform.

Wouldn't it be great--I mean, if I were the Governor, as I was for 8 years in Ohio, and somebody said: Governor, you know what. You have a real problem. And what we are going to do is, we are going to put a commission together on a bipartisan basis, and we are going to come back with recommendations to get the job done--I would kiss them and say: Wonderful. I could kind of forget about it, except for the two people in the administration who were working on it. If they came back with a bipartisan solution, wow. Get it through Congress and we deal with the substantive problem and we get a big political problem off our plate just before going into the next Presidential election. So I just hope there is some more thought being given by the administration, more thought given by the Congress.

We all say: Oh, yes, we are concerned about the national debt. We have to do something about it. But when you go home, what are you going to point to for the people, your constituents? What are you going to point to and say: I am sincere about this; I want to do something about it. Then they are going to ask you: Well, what did you do? One of the things you can do is say: I supported a bipartisan commission. They are going to go to work during the next year. They are going to come back with recommendations, and this is the way we can deal with the problem that is going to be such a burden on the future of our country.

I came here in 1999, and one of the reasons I came here was to deal with our deficits and with reducing our national debt. I am going to be leaving this place at the end of next year. I have three children, and I have seven grandchildren. I happen to believe that just like the pages who are here today in this room, they are going to have to work a lot harder, work a lot harder than I do in order to maintain the standard of living that I have been able to have because the competition in the world today is a lot keener than it was 15 or 20 years ago. They are just going to have to work harder than they have ever had to work before to maintain the kind of standard of living that we would like to have for them and for my children and grandchildren. But if you think about it, if we don't deal with this problem I am talking about today, we are going to lay on their backs taxes that will break the bank.

So we put them in a position where they are going to have to work harder to maintain a decent standard of living. Then, what we are saying to them is, we are going to let you pay for those things that we weren't willing to do without or pay for on our own. To me, that is absolutely immoral. It is absolutely immoral.

One of the things I would hope is--and I feel like a broken record, but I

would hope that the Holy Spirit would somehow enlighten us to face up to this very serious responsibility, one that if we don't face up to, will have a devastating impact on the future of our country and our children and grandchildren.

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

Yes, I will.