Floor Statements

Mr. President, as we consider the serious issue of immigration reform, it is important for us to understand where we are as a country with regard to the laws we have and how they are being enforced. I will share some thoughts about that today because the American people and Members of Congress need to fully understand what is happening. It is well documented that the Obama administration has either unilaterally weakened or outright waived the enforcement of existing immigration law at the border, in the interior, at the worksite and at the welfare office. That is just a fact.

Last year, I joined with my colleagues at a press conference with the top representatives of the Nation's rank-and-file immigration law enforcement officers--the presidents of the ICE--Immigration, Customs and Enforcement--and Border Patrol unions. Those men, who are elected to serve as the voice of their fellow officers, gave a chilling report at that press conference--right over in the Senate building, with several other Senators--they gave a chilling report about the administration's systematic effort to dismantle the enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws. It is not just an effort, it is an effective plan and action to do so.

At the center of this misconduct is John Morton, the Director of ICE. The evidence I am about to share with you leads me to the unfortunate conclusion that Mr. Morton can no longer effectively serve at this post and, perhaps more importantly, there can be no comprehensive immigration reform as long as he is the person charged with enforcing it. What purpose is served to pass new laws if the ones we have are ignored by the officials charged with enforcing them?

This timeline shows how Mr. Morton and the administration have undermined enforcement. Most Americans do not fully understand the real effect of these immigration policies. In reality, right now, if a State law enforcement officer apprehends someone for

speeding and discovers, for example, that he is illegally in the country, the result is that nothing happens. They do not even bother to call the Federal law enforcement officers to report they have apprehended someone who is in violation of our immigration law. And the reason they do not call is because nobody will come and get them.

This is something I have discovered over a number of years. When I was attorney general of Alabama, and for 12 years, the top Federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Alabama, the U.S. attorney, and I discovered how the system works--and it is not working. What happens is they release them. At townhall meetings I would ask the people who showed up, citizens: What happens if your local police officer apprehends someone who is illegally in the country? They say they call the Federal people or they arrest them and take them to jail. The answer is, no, they do not; they release them. That is what they do because the system is utterly broken and not working.

Let me run through a series of events that have occurred in the last several years that further undermine the ability of America to enforce its laws. Let me just say, parenthetically, the only way to have a real effective law enforcement system is to welcome support and affirm the willingness of local law enforcement to participate and assist. There are, for example, some 600,000 State and local law officers out there every day enforcing our laws, protecting their communities. There are far fewer, maybe 15,000 or 30,000 Federal officers, dealing with immigration. The real eyes and ears in law enforcement in America are those State and local people. States have been sued by this administration for even attempting to assist. This administration is denying and refusing to renew the cooperative agreements that are necessary for Federal and State and local authorities to work together to effectively enforce the laws of our country, and this is what is causing our problem.

Let me run through some of these areas and problems that have occurred recently. I may not be able to finish, and I will make the rest of my remarks available in the Record. In a 2010 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Director Morton announced ICE may not even process or accept illegal aliens transferred to the agency's custody by Arizona officials. They were not happy with Arizona, presumably, so they would not even accept people local law enforcement turned over.

On May 27, 2010, an ICE e-mail revealed that low-risk, short-term detainees would be able to have visitors stay for an unlimited amount of time during a 12-hour window, would be given access to unmonitored phone lines, e-mails, and free internet calling. They would also be entertained with movie nights, bingo, arts and crafts, dance and cooking classes, tutoring and computer training.

On June 25, 2010, the National ICE Council, the union that represents more than 7,000 detention and removal agents within ICE, cast a unanimous vote of no confidence in Director Morton. According to the officers, their vote reflects ``the growing dissatisfaction among ICE employees and union leaders that Director Morton . . . has abandoned the agency's core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and enforcing public safety and have, instead, directed [his] attention to campaigning for programs and policies leading to amnesty. . . .''

That is not a good thing for the chief immigration law enforcement officer of the country, for his people, the rank and file, putting their necks on the line every day, issuing such a report--and it is true. Unfortunately, it is. In August of 2010, ICE began circulating a draft policy that would significantly limit the circumstances under which ICE agents would take custody of illegal aliens. The memo provides that immigration officers shall issue detainers or official notification to law enforcement agencies that ICE intends to assume custody of the alien only after a law enforcement agency has independently arrested the alien for a criminal violation.

A detainer is a big deal. A detainer, if anyone understands how law enforcement works, is a critical component of modern law enforcement. If a State has a charge against an individual, or if the Federal Government has a claim against an individual being held by a different law enforcement agency, they place a detainer on that person and when the arresting jurisdiction completes its work with the person, they are not released on the streets; they are detained until they are turned over to the other legitimate law enforcement agency that has pending charges. If we do not have that, dangerous criminals are released, and it is really an improvement in law enforcement over the last 50 years.

This is a diminishment of that, significantly. In effect, no longer will ICE pick up an illegal alien for illegally entering the country or having false identification, or false immigration documents, if they are being held by State and local people for some local crime.

On October 8, 2010--according to ICE deportation statistics, from October 2009 through September 2010, the agency deported 390,000 aliens. But most, half of those at least, were people who were convicted of serious criminal offenses, independent of the immigration violations.

On December 6, 2010, interviews and internal communications cited in the Washington Post indicated that number, 390,000, was a padded number. First, the article charged that ICE included almost 20,000 removals in fiscal year 2010 that were for the previous year and should not have been counted. It also described how ICE extended a Mexican repatriation program beyond its normal operating dates, which, in effect, added 6,500 removals to the numbers that were not properly added.

On March 2, 2011, in a departmental memorandum, Director Morton outlined new enforcement priorities that encouraged ICE agents not to enforce the law against most illegal aliens but only to take action against those who meet his priorities. Director Morton issued a second memorandum on June 17, 2011, further directing ICE agents to refrain from enforcing U.S. immigration laws against certain segments of the illegal population, criteria similar to that under the DREAM Act, despite having no legal or congressional authority to do so and despite the fact that the DREAM Act was three times defeated in Congress.

What they did was they altered the enforcement policies of the Federal immigration officers to effect the DREAM Act that had been explicitly offered and rejected in Congress on three different occasions.

On June 17, 2011, Director Morton issued a third memorandum, instructing ICE personnel to consider refraining from enforcing the law against individuals engaged in a protected activity----

I thank the Chair--related to civil or other rights, for example union organizing, complaining about employment discrimination or housing conditions, and who may be in some nonfrivolous dispute with an employer, landlord or contractor. ICE agents were directed not to take action against someone who doesn't pay their rent and has a dispute with their landlord, apparently. They get special exemption.

On June 23, 2011, leaders of the national ICE union express outrage over the June 17 administrative amnesty memoranda authored by Director Morton. The law officers say that since the administration was ``unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, [it] is now implementing it through agency policy.'' It also accuses top ICE officials of working ``hand-in-hand'' with the open-borders lobby, while excluding its own officers from the policy development process. In plain words, they are saying the political appointees of ICE are advancing the agenda of those here illegally and maneuvering against their own law officers trying to do their duty.

On June 27, 2011, internal memoranda confirm that once the Houston Chronicle on August 24, 2010--exposed DHS' directive to review and dismiss valid deportation cases then in process, ICE officials attempted to publicly distance themselves from such lenient policies and deny that they ever existed.

On October 12, 2011, In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Director Morton admits that White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and former National Council of La Raza employee now--White House Domestic Policy Director--Cecilia

Munoz, assisted in preparation of the administrative amnesty memoranda.

On October 18, 2011, ICE refuses to take any action after the Santa Clara County, California, Board of Supervisors votes 3-1 to stop using county funds to honor ICE detainers, except in limited circumstances.

On October 19, 2011, ICE refuses to act after District of Columbia Mayor Vincent C. Gray issues an executive order to prevent D.C. police from enforcing U.S. immigration law. Among other things, the order prohibits all public safety agencies from inquiring about an individual's immigration status or from contacting ICE if there is no nexus to a criminal investigation.

On November 22, 2011, ICE refuses to act after Mayor Michael Bloomberg signs a measure ordering all city jails to ignore certain ICE detainers issued to deport illegal aliens from those jails. As a result, New York City jails now release many illegal aliens back into the community instead of handing them over to ICE for removal.

On December 15, 2011, without an opportunity to defend itself, and little regard for the maintenance of public safety or the rule of law, DHS rescinds Maricopa County, Arizona's 287(g) agreement--a cooperative agreement whereby local law enforcement receive training in identifying and apprehending illegal aliens. Director Morton tells the Maricopa County Attorney that ICE will no longer respond to calls from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office involving traffic stops, civil infractions or ``other minor offenses.'' However, it is unclear how ICE can refuse to respond to inquiries from the deputies and not directly violate federal law, which requires the federal government to respond to inquiries by law enforcement agencies to verify immigration status.

On December 29, 2011, ICE creates a 24-hour hotline for illegal alien detainees to be staffed by the Law Enforcement Support Center--the same organization that ICE says is too understaffed to keep up with immigration status check requests from state and local law enforcement. ICE then revises its detainer form to include a new provision that says ICE should ``consider this request for a detainer operative only upon the subject's conviction.'' This shift in policy to a discretionary ``post-conviction'' model ignores the fact that being in the country illegally is a violation of federal law while simultaneously welcoming criminal aliens back onto the streets.

On January 19, 2012, ICE attorneys in Denver and Baltimore recommend that the agency voluntarily close 1,667 removal cases, resulting in the release of illegal aliens already in proceedings without consequence for violating U.S. immigration laws.

On February 7, 2012, ICE announces the creation of the ICE Public Advocate, who is to serve as a point of contact for aliens in removal proceedings, community and advocacy groups, and others who have concerns, questions, recommendations, or other issues they would like to raise about the administration's executive enforcement and amnesty efforts.

On April 25, 2012, ICE officials announce it has offered to voluntarily close over 16,500 illegal alien deportation cases pending background checks in connection with the administration's review of 300,000 pending immigration cases. The administration also announces that the number of illegal aliens whose cases it has already dismissed is up to 2,700 from just over 1,500 the previous month.

On April 27, 2012, ICE shifts its policy on Secure Communities, where local officers report arrests of persons who are here illegally, to stop the enforcement of immigration law against illegal aliens apprehended for ``minor traffic offenses.'' When Secure Communities identifies illegal aliens pursuant to a traffic offense, ICE will no longer ask the local jails to detain the illegal aliens so that ICE may begin deportation proceedings; rather, ICE will only consider detaining an alien if the alien is ultimately convicted of the offense. Moreover, despite claims of limited resources, ICE also announced it plans to take action against jurisdictions with arrest rates the agency deems too high.

On June 5, 2012, ICE releases its latest statistics in its case-by- case review of pending deportation cases and states the Agency's attorneys have reviewed over 288,000 cases. Of those reviewed, ICE says it plans to voluntarily dismiss 20,648; it states over 4,300 of these cases have already been processed and the remaining will be closed pending background checks.

As I noted earlier, last year, I joined several of my colleagues in a press conference with the President of the ICE Officers Association, Chris Crane. What he said corroborated our worst fears--it was a chilling report about the administration's systematic effort to dismantle our nation's immigration laws. Here is just some of what he had to say:

As one example, prosecutorial discretion for [those

qualifying for DREAM Act amnesty] is solely based on the

individuals' claims. Our orders are, if an alien says they

went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have

a GED, then let them go. Officers have been told that there

is no burden for the alien to prove anything. Even with the

greatly relaxed new policies, the alien isn't even required

to prove that they meet any of the new criteria.

There is no requirement, or burden to prove anything, on

the part of the alien. We believe that significant numbers of

people, who [do not meet DREAM Act criteria], are taking

advantage of this practice to avoid arrest.

The administration's new policies do not provide officers

with new options or increased flexibility, but instead order

officers not to enforce laws and not to take enforcement

actions against specific groups, with officers under threat

of losing their jobs if they do so.

We were the only safety net between the community and these

[criminal alien] predators, until now. Now, those folks, more

and more, are walking out the back doors of these jails.

We're walking away from them out in the field, we're

encountering them in houses, and we're not allowed to talk to

them. We're not allowed to do basic investigative work. And

because of that, we're walking away from a lot of bad guys.

This is not about individuals who are here to work, or

whatever the case may be, there is a much larger problem and

everybody is getting wrapped up in the same situation. When

you take an officer's ability in the field to distinguish

between those types of things, you place the public at risk.

The situation is so dire that these brave men and women saw no choice but to file suit against their leadership, including Director Morton. Last Friday, a federal judge ruled that ICE agents and officers have the right to challenge the administrative amnesty policies instituted by Director Morton and President Obama, which command the agents to violate federal law and refrain from detaining most all illegal aliens, or face disciplinary action or worse--losing their jobs.

According to the complaint, even violent offenders are eligible for automatic release under these non-enforcement policies. For example, ICE agent Samuel Martin, along with another ICE agent, picked up an illegal alien from the El Paso County, Texas jail on July 17, 2012. While the agents were trying to place the individual in the vehicle, he attempted to escape and physically assaulted the agents. Although the agents regained custody of the alien and transported him to the El Paso Criminal Alien Program office for processing, the agents' supervisors ordered them to release the alien without charges and specifically to not issue a Notice to Appear, as required by federal law. The agents protested the release of the alien but were told ``it was a management decision, based on the President's new immigration policies.'' Anyone with the slightest experience in law enforcement can see that these actions are devastating to law enforcement personnel.

Let's take a minute and put ourselves in the position of these agents. Let's say you stop a 34-year old man for speeding. He speaks little English, has no identification, and has no proof that he meets any of the criteria of the President's DREAM Act amnesty. But he knows enough to say he has been in the country since he was a child. You have no way of confirming this or whether he has a criminal record in this or any other country, but you have to let him go. This is what is happening every day. What a devastating indictment of this administration's willful and reckless dismantling of enforcement.

On August 3, 2012, I wrote to Director Morton regarding reports that ICE suspended an agent in the Philadelphia field office for arresting a 35-year old Mexican citizen unlawfully present in the U.S. with ten misdemeanor traffic

violations, no driver's license, and apparent ties to a fugitive. The alien arrived in the U.S. at the age of 25, meaning that he should not qualify for ``deferred action,'' even under the administration's unlawfully imposed DREAM Act directive. Yet, according to reports, the acting field director, a supervisor, advised the criminal alien that he would be let go because he was not a ``presidential priority.''

On August 15, 2012, Director Morton responded to my letter, stating that the agent was in trouble for failing to obey ``chain of command.''

On September 11, 2012, I responded that the issue was not ``chain of command'' but rather the agent's sworn duties under the law and the administration's ``priorities'' that contradict that sworn obligation. The supervisors' actions in this matter, and Director Morton's support for them, disastrously undermine the effectiveness of our immigration law enforcement officers in the field and their ability to enforce our nation's laws. I stated that his apparent failure to support his officers in these incidents and his evident lack of concern for the administration's decision to nullify the very laws they were sworn to enforce, raised serious questions about his ability to lead the agency.

Director Morton never responded to that letter.

There is much more that I could say about this, and I have many more examples of actions taken by Mr. Morton that have been demoralizing to our agents. It is just not good as a Federal law officer, and it is not healthy.

As I noted earlier, this is what ICE agents are telling us they have essentially been told: If an individual claims DREAM Act status--even though it never passed into law--they are directed to let them go on the spot. It is an evisceration of the law of the United States. Mr. Morton has no authority to do so, and he should not be doing that. A huge percentage of the people who are arrested are in their thirties or below. How are you going to tell? They make the assertion, they make the claim, and--according to the testimony and statements of these officers--they are told to accept that statement, accept that claim, and not detain or deport the person they have apprehended.

The ICE union vote of no confidence and the detailed charges against ICE's leadership are corroborated by those inside the administration who are afraid to speak out because they fear retaliation by the Obama administration. That is a sad state of affairs.

In the coming days, these facts and more will come to light. The administration has to realize there can be no comprehensive immigration reform as long as it is the policy of the Director of ICE, John Morton, to refuse to enforce existing law. We can't have an agreement. That is why, given everything that we have learned, Director Morton cannot continue in office.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

We cannot make progress on immigration reform as long as the man in charge of enforcing our laws continues to undermine those very laws and the efforts and work of his own agents, and refuses to act to protect them even when they have been assaulted by people. Aliens who have been released have assaulted agents. As I noted, ICE agents have filed a lawsuit against Director Morton for undermining their ability to do their sworn duty, and the court has just recently upheld the validity of that lawsuit to go forward, and it is now going forward. These officers are suing Mr. Morton.

So the Federal Government is abdicating its responsibility. It is violating the laws of the United States. It is punishing officers who try to do their duty. They are creating a larger illegal population in this country. They are encouraging more people to come to the country by not enforcing our laws, and at a time of high unemployment, the result is we are lowering wages and creating more unemployment.

They are suing States who try to cooperate. They are explicitly eviscerating the 287(g) program--a program I worked hard on a decade ago and was expanded--to train State law enforcement officers who can help the Federal agents to do their jobs.

Now the President is making a speech today in Las Vegas, taking 9 hours to get out there, I understand, to make a speech. He is saying again, I guess: Trust me. We need to change the law, and then I will enforce it. Then we will have our people follow the rules that you passed.

Well, this failure to deal in good faith and to actually follow the laws that Congress has passed is one of the biggest obstacles we face. We just have to say it. It is one of the biggest obstacles we face in being able to craft some sort of reform of our immigration laws and make it worthy of a great nation. We are a nation of immigrants. We believe in immigration. But we believe in the law. We believe that people should wait their turn and people should be able to be accepted here--over 1 million a year--in an orderly process, not a disorderly process, and that we shouldn't be rewarding those who violate the law and making it even harder for those who comply with the law.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I know there is a group of Senators who announced today that they have ideas, a plan, an outline, and a framework for a new comprehensive immigration bill. Indeed, the fact that our current immigration system is not working effectively and is failing on a daily basis cannot be denied. It certainly needs to be fixed. It is a challenge for us to do so and it will not be easy. I want to warn my colleagues that a framework is not a bill.

In 2006 and 2007, with the full support of the Republican President of the United States, a bipartisan group announced with great confidence that they had a plan that was going to fix our immigration system and we were all going to just line up and vote for it. The masters of the universe had decided, met in secret, had all the special interest groups gathered and worked out a plan that was going to change our immigration system for the better, and we should all be most grateful.

It came up in 2006, and it did not pass. It came back again in 2007 with even more emphasis, and it failed colossally. It failed because it did not do what they said it would do. It did not end the illegality, it did not set forth a proper principle of immigration for America, and it did not sufficiently alter the nature of our immigration system to advance the national interest of the United States. It did not, and that is why it didn't pass. They had all the powerful forces, including the TV and newspaper guys, the Wall Street guys, the agriculture guys, the civil rights group, La Raza, and the politicians. But the American people said no. It was a challenge, and there was a long debate, but it didn't pass. I thought the lesson learned from that was there needs to be a demonstration that the law is being enforced, end the illegality, and then we can wrestle with how to compassionately treat people who have been in America a long time. I thought that was kind of what we had decided.

Now my colleagues say: Don't worry, this is going to be a better piece of legislation that can work for us. I hope that is true. We do need to fix the immigration system. There are things we can do on a bipartisan, nonpartisan basis which would make our country's immigration policy better and more effective, and I hope that is what will result from this.

But no one should expect that Members of the Senate are just going to rubberstamp what a group of Members have decided. We are not going to just rubberstamp what the President of the United States has just decided because we need to analyze it. Each one of us, every Member of this Senate has a responsibility, a firm duty to evaluate this proposal to ensure that it enhances our ability as a nation to do the right thing.

We are a nation of immigrants, and we are going to continue to be a nation of immigrants. We admit over 1 million people into our country every single year legally. But now we are told that after 1986, when they had that immigration bill, that amnesty bill, that we have allowed 11 million more people, give or take a few million, into the country illegally. They have entered the country illegally. In 1986 Congress promised the American people that if they would give amnesty to the people who were here and who entered illegally, they would stop illegal immigration in the future and we wouldn't face this challenge again. In fact, our colleagues basically said that in their piece they put out promoting the bill: We are never going to have to worry about immigration again if Members pass our legislation. That was the promise made in 1986 when the bill did pass, but it did not fulfill its promise.

So once again I think we are in a situation where the promise will be made that people will be given immediate regularized status and they won't be given full rights of citizenship until certain laws are enforced, and don't worry about it--it is all going to work out sometime off in the distant future. But questions do need to be asked, and we will ask those questions, and it will be important for us to do the right thing.

I know there are people who like low wages. I know there are people who believe that it is hard to get Americans to do certain jobs and that we can use immigrants and they will do those jobs at less pay and ask fewer questions and demand fewer benefits. I know that is out there. We have talked about that in the past. I am hoping this legislation is not designed for the special interests but designed to advance American interests.

What are some of the principles I think need to be in this system? I like Canada's system of immigration. It seems to work very well. They ask a number of questions. They give points when one applies to come into Canada, and a person gets more points for meeting the goals they have. One of the goals they have is that the potential immigrant speak the language. In Canada, they have two--French and English. If a person speaks French or English, they get more points or maybe they don't even get in if they don't have some grasp of the language before they come in on a permanent basis. Then they give more points, more preference to people with education, skills they need in Canada.

This proposal suggests it does that. It should do that. It should be a major part of any immigration reform that focuses on trying to get people who will be most successful in America, the ones we know are going to be able to do better here.

The plan should not admit a person who is likely to be a public charge. However, that is already the current law. A person is not supposed to be admitted to America if they are likely to be a public charge; that is, they will need government aid to take care of themselves. Some people will be turned down because of this. We should take the ones who are not going to be a public charge.

We discovered in looking at the numbers recently that less than one- tenth of 1 percent of applicants that come to the United States are turned down on the basis that they might be a public charge. So, in effect, that is not being enforced. Basically, it is just not being enforced.

So how can we be sure of that? My friend Stephen Moore was on the TV today. He is at the Wall Street Journal. He said: You don't have to worry about people coming in and being a public charge. There is a law against that.

Well, Mr. Moore, there may be a law against it, but it is not being enforced. We need to know it is going to be enforced in the future.

Younger people in Canada get a priority. Pretty soon, people will be on Social Security and Medicare when they reach those ages. Shouldn't we as a rational nation look to give priority to younger people who will work a little longer and pay more into the system before they draw these benefits?

They give preferences to investors, those who create jobs and bring factories and manufacturing to their country. Those are the kinds of things I think we ought to be talking about.

This proposal makes reference to guest workers. It is a very delicate issue. Let me tell my colleagues what was in the bill in 2007 and the reason. In my mind, it was one of the greater errors in the legislation. People would come into the country for 3 years. They could bring their families. If they were still working at the place at which they came in to work, they could extend for another 3 years and then another 3 years and then another 3 years. So I would ask, somebody who had been in the country 8, 9, 10 years, could we just easily ask them to leave? Not likely. What if they have had two children and the children are automatic citizens?

This is a very impractical system. So we need to examine how a guest worker

plan will actually be carried out. In my view, a guest worker should come without family for less than a year at a time to do seasonal--to do particular work and then return to their country. Otherwise, we create an entirely new system, and it will be very difficult to enforce.

We need to know pretty much what the Nation can rightly absorb in terms of the number of people who come each year, and as a result of that, we need to make sure any legislation has a limit that would make common sense in the world in which we live.

Finally, I would say that we face a particular hurdle this time. We faced this hurdle last time, but I believe it is even more serious this time. That is, if the chief law enforcement officer of the country-- then President Bush, now President Obama--President Obama has particularly acted to undermine the ability of the law enforcement community to actually enforce existing laws----

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have voted unanimously ``no confidence'' in Mr. John Morton, the Director of ICE, because of his failure to lead and his, in fact, undermining of their ability to do their jobs, and they sued him for interfering with their ability to do their jobs in enforcing the laws of this country. Actually, a federal court just recently upheld the lawsuit and allowed it to proceed. What a terrible thing it is that law enforcement officers have to sue their leadership to be able to do their jobs.

So we need to be sure we have in the President someone who is committed to enforcing the law if it is passed. If that had been so, we would be in a lot better position today.

I see my colleague from Louisiana, and I believe he is to be recognized next. He has been such a good student of this issue. He is a fabulous lawyer, editor of the Tulane Law Review, and he understands this, and I am really glad he could be here today.

There is one more thing I would note. In addition to the fact that we have a President less willing to enforce the law, the labor participation rate in 2007 when the last comprehensive reform bill that included amnesty was defeated was 66 percent. Today, labor participation has dropped to 63.6 percent. Unemployment in 2007, when the last proposal failed, was 4.5 percent. It is now 7.9 percent.

So I think we need to ask serious questions about any proposal, and maybe we can move forward with some legislation that would serve the national interests. Maybe we can do it on a bipartisan basis, but it is going to take real attention to details. The details are what make the difference, and that is what I am concerned about.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I was pleased to hear a few days ago that Senator Schumer said we would have a budget in the Senate. It has been now, I think, about 1,370 days, give or take, since we have had a budget in the Senate, even though plain statutory law requires the Congress to have a budget. Now Senator Murray has followed up today, I believe, with a quote saying: ``. . . the Senate will once again return to regular order and move a budget resolution through the Budget Committee and to the Senate floor.''

So the Budget Committee has not been meeting. It has not been doing its duty. As the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, I have been aghast at the process and have talked about it for now for over 1,000 days. So this will be a good step.

My colleagues would like to suggest somehow that they decided to do this out of the goodness of their hearts because it is the right thing to do. But I think the American people have had a belly full of this.

The U.S. House of Representatives has repeatedly passed budgets, but the Senate has refused to even bring one up in committee or on the floor for over 2 years now. They have said they are raising the debt limit for about 3 months, but they have declared that the Senate does not get paid until we have a budget. Right now there is no punishment for not passing a budget. I was a Federal prosecutor for over 15 years and know how to read a code. It has no penalty for failing to pass a budget. It says the Senate should bring up a budget. It should complete the budget process in committee by April 1 and then the full Senate should take it up and it should be completed by April 15. The Senate is given priority: 50 hours of debate, virtually unlimited amendments--an opportunity to debate the financial condition of America.

That is why it has not happened. Senator Reid, the Democratic leader for the last several years, has said it would be foolish to have a budget. What he meant was that it would be foolish politically. Because when you bring up a budget, this is a tough thing. The House did that.

Paul Ryan offered a historic budget that would change the debt course of America and put us on a sound path. They had to make some tough choices. So they were, of course, attacked in the election--Oh, these are horrible people; they want to throw old people off the cliff and that kind of thing and it was irresponsible--while during this entire process, the Senate was in direct violation of Federal law that required us to bring up a budget. We did not bring it up because it would be foolish, foolish politically, because we have to take tough votes. We have to stand and be counted. Numbers have to be analyzed: How much are you truly going to raise taxes? Oh, well, is that going to change the debt course?

Is this latest $600 billion tax increase going to change the debt course of America? No; it is not. Our deficit last year was about $1,080 billion. How much would this tax increase, this $600 billion, have changed that? That is $60 billion a year. Instead of $1,080 billion or so in deficit, our deficit would have been $1,020 billion. Is that going to fix our problem? No, it will not.

These are difficult problems. These are very difficult problems, and it is not going to be easy. But it was easy to attack the House while not producing a budget. It is a pretty flabbergasting thing to me. So I am glad we are now going to have this process. It will not be easy for Republicans. It will not be easy for Democrats. But what are we paid to do? What responsibility do we have as the Congress--that has the power of the purse--if not discussing the great issues of our time?

We are on an unsustainable debt path. Last year there was another trillion-dollar deficit, and they are projecting we will have a trillion-dollar deficit this year. That is 5 consecutive years of trillion-dollar deficits. I know President Bush was criticized, and correctly sometimes, for spending too much. The highest deficit he ever had in 8 years was $470 billion. The year before he left it was $160 billion. President Obama has averaged well over $1,000 billion a year in an annual deficit ever since.

This is not sustainable, as every expert has told us time and time again. So I am worried about it. Maybe we can move out of these secret meetings where the Senate just sits around and we wait for the people to appear, write us a bill at midnight on December 31--actually 1 a.m. on January 1--that is supposed to handle it and nobody has even read it.

That is what we have been doing for the last 4 years. It has worked out good politically because it has kept an honest discussion of the dangerous path we are on from being part of the public debate. We have to have it part of the

public debate. I am not saying this budget, if it moves through the Senate, is going to solve our problems and that it will be adopted. I am not saying that. But I do believe the American people will understand better the challenges we face and Senators will understand better the challenges we face, how deep they are, how systemic they are.

In 2011, after Republicans won a victory in the midterm elections, there was hope we would have a new budget from the President, that he would reach out to the House that had gotten a Republican majority for a change--they took back the majority, and there were more Republicans in the Senate--and that the President was going to produce a budget that would put us on the right path and maybe a historic path that would help make Social Security and Medicare sustainable, preserve those programs so people can go to bed at night and feel confident these programs not going to go bankrupt and there are not going to be dramatic cuts. We can do that. It would take some belt-tightening, but we could do that. Yet the administration refused: You are just partisan, Sessions.

I am saying, without fear of contradiction by anybody who knows what has happened, that this administration basically has not wanted to talk about those deep spending issues that amount to more than half the money we spend.

That was a challenge. Maybe that logjam has broken and this budget process will give us an opportunity to move forward.

I do not like to be critical of nominees or anyone. I try to be as courteous and respectful as we can to people whom we deal with on a regular basis in the Congress. But I have to share with my colleagues a deep feeling that we have a serious credibility problem with credibility on debt and financing. We have to end that credibility problem. We have to be honest and deal with real numbers.

In January of 2011, Mr. Jack Lew, the then-Director of the Office of Management and Budget, with a substantial staff--one of their primary duties is to produce a budget every year--submitted the President's Budget to Congress. The President always submits a budget--it has been late, but they have always sent them over. The Senate has not moved budgets like it is required to, but every President has always sent over a budget. There was great hope that the budget would be the kind of breakthrough--with a Republican House and a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate--that somehow this would be an opportunity for historic agreement to put America on a sound path and get us off these trillion-dollar deficits, put us on a path to a balanced budget and do the kind of things that are necessary for the welfare of our country.

Mr. Lew produced the budget, and he went on television immediately and talked about it. On Wednesday of that week, he was going to be before the Budget Committee, but this is what he said in his CNN Sunday morning interview about his budget. I would ask you to listen to these words, colleagues and friends, anybody who is watching, and see what they mean to you. He said:

Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the

point where we can look the American people in the eye and

say we're not adding to the debt anymore; we're spending

money that we have each year--

Money that we have each year--

and then we can work on bringing down our national debt.

That was on CNN.

So he appeared before the Budget Committee and I asked him if that was an accurate statement; did he stand by that. He said: Yes, sir, and he never wavered from that.

I will just say that as part of the budget process we get a stack of documents--this much--from Mr. Lew's office. The Office of Management and Budget submits them--supporting documents--as part of their process. They are easily ascertainable. The numbers are not in dispute.

The lowest single deficit over 10 years that Mr. Lew projected was more than $600 billion. In other words, there was never a balanced budget, never paying down the debt, never a single year we were not borrowing at least $600 billion.

None of what he said is accurate. It is breathtaking. I called it the greatest financial misrepresentation in history. It would have added $13 trillion to the debt of the United States over 10 years, by his own estimate, not stuff I made up. Yet he said we are not going to be adding to the debt anymore.

So I thought, if a businessman reported to potential stock purchasers, our company is on the right track, we are not adding to our debt anymore--we are going to look the American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore, we are spending only money we have--you are borrowing--the least amount of money you have borrowed in a single year is $600 billion, larger than President Bush ever had in 8 years as President.

When I asked him about it, he insisted that it was true. So we have got a problem here, and that is why I am not going to support Mr. Lew for the Secretary of the Treasury. I am not going to vote for him. I believe he knew exactly what he was saying. He produced a budget that was panned by virtually every editorial board in America. They hammered it as failing to meet the challenge of our time, and he knew it was that way. He is not a person who doesn't understand these issues. He knew what it was all about. But they decided they would go out and spin it this way. They would say it did what the American people wanted.

I hate to be this harsh, but there is only one conclusion. They decided to produce a budget that did not change the debt course of America and left us on an unsustainable path. Even their own numbers show that, but they would tell the American people this, say it was fixed, and maybe lull them into a false sense of confidence.

Then they attacked Paul Ryan of the Republican House for producing a realistic budget. It wasn't a dramatic budget, it didn't even balance in 10 years, but it changed us and put us on a sound path. They would attack him as not caring about people, and for 2 years that is what has happened.

Once we bring a budget to the floor of this Senate, Republicans and Democrats are going to find out this is a very difficult situation we are in. The challenge is going to be very difficult, and we are going to have a hard time dealing with it.

Mr. Lew didn't just make that comment to CNN, in case you think I am exaggerating here. He also said this in an NPR, National Public Radio, interview on February 15, 2011, the day, I believe, of a Budget Committee hearing:

If we're able to reduce the deficit to the point where we

can pay for our spending and invest in the future, that is an

enormous accomplishment. This budget has specific proposals

that would do that.

He looked the American people in the eye, or, I guess, talked to their ears on NPR, and said his ``budget has specific proposals'' that would put us in a position to pay for our spending and invest in the future and reduce our deficit.

He went on to say on February 15, 2011, at the Budget Committee hearing--and I think this was my question, Was this an accurate statement that you made, Mr. OMB Director?

He said:

It's an accurate statement that our current spending will

not be increasing the debt. We've stopped spending money that

we don't have.

I mean, I almost can't read those words without the hair standing up on the back of my neck. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget appeared before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, and he said, ``it's an accurate statement,'' this baloney, ``it's an accurate statement that our current spending will not be increasing the debt . . . We've stopped spending money that we don't have.''

Nothing could be further from the truth--the lowest single deficit was $600 billion.

What about on a different CNN interview on February 14, 2011:

It [the budget] takes real actions now so that between now

and 5 years from now we can get our deficit under control so

that we can stabilize things so that we're not adding to the

debt anymore.

He promised, and looked the American people in the eye and said, in 5 years, we are not going to be adding to the debt anymore. He knew exactly what he was saying. He knew exactly what he wanted the American people to hear. There is no ambiguity about it, and it was utterly false.

February 13, 2011, on ABC, he said:

This budget has a lot of pain, [but] it does the job, it

cuts the deficit in half by the end

of the President's first term . . . It's going to take us a

lot of hard work just to take us to the point where we're not

adding to the debt.

There is not one year that they are not adding to the debt.

In the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth years of the budget that Jack Lew presented, when you look at his real numbers, the deficit was going up each year. So it was not a fix to our debt problem.

Then he says this on the White House blog, February 13, 2011:

Like every family, we have to tighten our belts and live

within our means while we're investing in the things that we

need to have a strong and secure future . . . We know that

you have to stabilize where we're going before you can move

on and solve the rest of the problem. This budget does that.

So it is going to stabilize us and move us forward.

Well, as I say, that was not well received. The New York Times wrote this on February 5, 2011. That was his op-ed. I won't go into the editorials, but a whole list of those were critical of Mr. Lew.

I would just say this, we are in a difficult financial position. We need honesty, we need a budget that is truthful, we need the regular order so the Budget Committee does its work, and then it comes to the floor of the U.S. Senate--this will be first time in over a thousand days--it guarantees 50 hours of debate, it can't be filibustered, it can be passed with a simple majority, we will know what is in it, and people can offer amendments. That is what should have been happening for a long time that has not been happening. That is what the law requires, and that should be completed by April 15 of this year.

As we go forward, I am confident that we will be better served by public discussion of our debt, not secret meetings. I have been critical of them. I had hoped that some of them would ripen into some good solutions, but all we have had is temporary ``kick the can down the road'' maneuvers, and nothing substantial has been done to change the debt course of America.

By the way, when Mr. Erskine Bowles, whom President Obama appointed to head his fiscal commission, saw this budget in 2011, he said it goes nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare. Everybody knew this budget wouldn't do the job, and that is why it was never brought through the process, and that is why it wasn't brought to the floor for a full budget analysis in committee and in debate on the floor.

So as we go forward, I will be meeting with our new chairman, Senator Murray. She is a great, tough advocate for her values, but she is a good person to work with. I have told her we will try to work with her, but we are going to talk about the great issues of our time, the difficulties we face, and see if we can't make this system work better and try to put this country on a sound financial footing.

We can do it. We can get this country on a sound path. It is not impossible, but anybody who thinks it will be easy is wrong. This is going to take some hard work. As we do that in a bipartisan, open way in the committee, on the floor of the Senate, the American people will be able to digest the difficulty of some of our challenges, and so will our Members in Congress. In the end, that, I think, leaves us in the best position to reach the kind of agreement, compromise, solution, that can put us on the right path, because everybody is going to have to swallow a little bit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to use as much time as I may consume.

I am so pleased to see that Senator Conrad is here, that I could follow him. I had another subject I wanted to speak about, an important subject. But it is very important for all Americans to know how well he has served.

Senator Conrad is one of the very small group of people in this country who understands the debt challenges we face. He has been on the debt commission. He has been the budget chairman. He staked his first election on dealing with these issues, as he has explained to us. I truly believe if he had a little more support, maybe, from his caucus and others, his vision could have been a real part of the solution we would make to this debt crisis. We are not that far apart when you consider the true challenges this Nation faces financially.

I remember a little over 2 years ago now, when the Senator called the debt commission cochairman, Erskine Bowles before the budget committee. He gave a speech and written testimony, which said this Nation has never faced a more predictable financial crisis. I remember the Senator asked the cochairman when we might have this financial crisis if we don't change our ways. He replied, it could be 2 years, as close as 2 years. That was 2 years ago, over 2 years ago now.

I think, Senator Conrad, we have maybe gotten a little overconfident. People were telling us we were on an unsustainable course, we were facing a potential crisis, the Rogoff and Reinhart book came out and said that our debt reaches 90 percent of GDP, and all that was discussed and we had a lot of excitement about it, and we did not act. We did not act in a significant way.

In times gone by, maybe people thought the crisis is never going to happen, but I think the Senator agrees the potential for it to happen is just as real, if not more so, than it was 2 years ago.

I want to say this. We did not always agree. The Senator didn't always agree

with my views and I understand that. But the Senator allowed the minority on the committee to have its voice heard, to ask our questions, and the Senator called some great hearings. We had some of the best minds in the country provide testimony before the budget committee. The Senator allowed and called the administration witnesses and we were able to examine them about how they were managing the country's money. The Senator allowed that to happen in the great tradition of the Senate where we have open debate and honest questioning. The Senator was always a perfect gentleman, and always able, as I think the Presiding Officer would acknowledge, to give a little levity to a tense situation. The Senator has a great sense of humor that really endeared him to me.

So I will say to Senator Conrad, thank you for your service. I believe every member of the budget committee, Republican and Democrat, appreciated the Senator's leadership. I know they did. I know the staff also respected the Senator's leadership. We had a great time working with the Senator's professional team. The Senator served his country exceedingly well dealing with the greatest issue we face today, our financial debt situation. I hope and I am confident the Senator will remain active, that he will not be silent, that he will provide continual input and advice to the Members of Congress as we wrestle with these tough issues.

Mr. President, I will repeat my admiration and affection for the Senator from North Dakota and appreciation for his leadership.

Mr. President, I want to say some things that are pretty hard right now. I say them out of affection and concern for the Senate of the United States and for the way we are conducting the people's business. I believe they ought to be heard and all of us ought to think about them. Some of our new Members have not been involved in a Senate that functioned differently than the one in which we are participating today. They do not know how a real Senate should operate. We have gradually, and at a very accelerated pace in more recent years, made some very unwise choices about how we do the people's business.

This has been the most dysfunctional Senate in history. The majority has abused and altered the powers and duties of the Senate more than at any time in history, to the detriment of the institution and to the detriment of the public interest.

That is a hard thing to say, but I truly believe something very unfortunate has been occurring and people have not talked about it. I would also criticize the Republicans a bit here because we are supposed to be the loyal opposition. The majority always has pressures on it to advance an agenda and the loyal opposition has the duty to advocate for its views and make sure the institution is handled in a way that protects the institution as the majority seeks to advance its agenda. Frankly, I do not think we have done a good enough job at that. But I would say the majority is using tactics--I refer to them as postmodern tactics--to advance an agenda. And in so doing has done damage to the institution.

Our leader, Senator Reid, will not acknowledge a single error in his aggressive leadership and movement of legislation. He simply blames all the problems on Republicans who, he says, are obstructing his vision, his goals, and the agenda that he and his team want to advance. Not satisfied that these actions have brought the Senate to one of its lowest levels of public respect in history, if not the lowest, the majority party is now demanding even more power.

The majority leader and the majority are threatening to violate the rules of the Senate and change the rules of the Senate so they can grab even more power. I would say the majority leader himself has obtained more power than any leader in history, and now it appears that he is asking for more.

We don't like to talk about this. We are reluctant to talk about what is happening and be as critical as I am today, but in fact we have been silent too long. The bottom line is that this issue is not just about politics. This issue is about the historic role of the Senate and our constitutional order.

This Senate is not functioning as it should, and that is for sure; we all may agree on that. The question is, Why? Perhaps it was due to the 2010 election when the Democrats took a shellacking and lost six Senate seats. At that point there seemed to be a doubling down of the desire and ability of the majority leadership to dominate this institution. Actual Senate rules and actual codified law--and certainly the traditions of the Senate--were eroded. They were changed and run over.

The Republicans who fought back were called obstructionists. I don't know, but maybe when someone has been in power for a long time--as the leadership and the Democratic side has--they begin to think they are entitled to get all these things done. They believe they are entitled to bring up bills and not have Senators offer amendments so they can slow down the train and pick and choose what amendments the opposition can offer and how long they can debate. Maybe this goes in their mind in a way that when they get in that cocoon of power, everybody becomes an obstructionist when they simply insist on the rules of the Senate.

I always thought one of Senator Reid's charms--the old Harry Reid I knew--was that he could actively and aggressively talk politically and stick it to the opposition. He always got to the point. Sometimes I could admire his skills. He could do it with a smile. We all tolerate a little political license and a certain amount of political exaggeration in the world we live in, but I thought Senator Reid would not seek to advance powers beyond what he understood were the limits of the majority in the Senate because he has been in the minority, and he has operated there. He had to fight for his rights to have full minority rights. So I am a little baffled. I am not sure I understand this new Senator Reid, and I am not sure all of the decisions he is making are good.

Now we are talking about a nuclear option that would break the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate. That is a very dangerous thing, and I do not believe it is necessary.

Let me describe what is happening. I want to make a complaint about how this Senate has been operating. I said it is dysfunctional. The majority has said the reason it is dysfunctional is because Republicans object too much and they are obstructionists. Let me point out some of the things that are actually occurring.

First, I would dispute that. I don't believe it is accurate that Republicans object too much and are obstructionists. I don't believe Republicans are any more vigorous in their defense of their ideas than the Democrats were when they were in the minority when I came to the Senate 16 years ago. I know they were not. So it is the little constraints that we operate under every day, such as rules, tradition, actual statutory law that controls how we conduct our business that are being eroded, gone around, and run over. These are the things that make the institution what it is. A person has to be able to accept the fact that those who disagree with them have at least some power and a right to have their voices and ideas heard and their amendments brought up. That is one of the great traditions of the Senate.

So I say--sort of metaphorically--I am going to tack on the walls of the Senate a few charges. I don't take pleasure in this, but it is time to tell the truth about it.

First, to a degree unknown in the history of the Senate, the majority leader has used his power under rule XIV to bring bills straight to the floor without normal committee process. They are violating and avoiding the

process that goes on in committee where Members offer amendments, have debates, call expert witnesses, and consider these things. It may take weeks or months, but finally a bill ripens and it is then brought to the floor.

The majority leader does have the power under rule XIV to bring a bill to the floor without having had that committee process. The committee process is public, the debate is transcribed, and the amendments in the committee are voted on and recorded. It holds the Senators accountable so the public and their constituents know what they have done, how a bill is progressing, and at the end of the day whether they think they like it or not.

For example, this last-minute fiscal cliff tax legislation didn't go through the committee process. It was a big, important piece of legislation. We have a finance committee that is supposed to debate and decide tax issues. That did not occur with this bill. Additionally, no amendments were allowed to this bill--because it was brought directly to the floor by the majority leader. It is a very bad process. We are too often using midnight-hour votes to ram through big, historic legislation that has never been fully debated. We didn't even have an opportunity to fully read the legislation the night before last. That is not the way to run the Senate. What we know now from a preliminary estimate from the Congressional Research Service is that 58 percent of the bills which came to the floor of the Senate did not come through committee during this Congress. Nearly 60 percent of the legislation was not brought through traditional Senate committee procedures, and that is not good.

Second, the majority leader and the majority were quick to block President Bush's recess appointment attempts. Some of them were dubious; some of them were probably OK. They had the majority. They have done nothing to defend the Senate's historic and constitutional role when President Obama made a much more blatant recess appointment. The institution itself was weakened by this act. The Senate has to defend its legitimate confirmation powers, and there is a limit on the President's ability to initiate recess appointments.

The majority leader--righteous to defend it against President Bush-- who is now the leader of this institution, has allowed President Obama to weaken the confirmation process. That goes beyond just the politics of the moment. Maybe it furthers a long-term agenda, but clearly does harm to the long-term interest of the Senate.

Third, the majority has directly violated the formal role of the Senate and plain statutory law that requires the Senate to produce a budget every year. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 sets up a public legislative process--a public process--by which both the House and Senate must openly confront the Nation's fiscal challenges every year and lay out a plan. For 3 years the majority in this Senate has refused to comply with the law simply to avoid public accountability.

The majority leader said it would be foolish to have a budget. Those are his words. Senator Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee, was clearly uneasy about this. Senator Conrad was determined--at least in his committee, which I serve on with him--to bring up a budget. We were going to discuss it, mark it up, and then it would be up to the majority leader whether he would ever bring it to the floor because he didn't bring it to the floor the year before.

We have now gone 3 years without bringing a budget to the floor. Apparently, the majority had a caucus within a day of the Budget Committee markup occurring. My staff had studied it, made amendments, and we were going to offer ideas to the budget. But the markup was canceled. Only a shell of this matter went forward. There were no votes, no formal budget process or budget offered. That is directly contrary to the statute of the United States.

The Budget Act requires an open process with committee votes, floor votes, and 50 hours of debate in which Senators who propose or oppose a budget have to do so publicly and with accountably. People should be able to offer amendments so we can have a vote on them.

Senator Reid was thinking it was foolish to have his Members actually have to vote on concrete budget proposals. He didn't want them to do so. Apparently, the previous election had not gone well enough, and he wanted to protect his Members from those votes. That is what he meant by being foolish. It was foolish politically for the Democratic Party, but certainly we know it was not foolish for the American people that the Senate would actually discuss the financial future of our country and bring up a budget. A budget can be passed with a simple majority. Republicans cannot filibuster a budget. They get to offer amendments-- for a change around here--but they don't get to filibuster it. They get an up-or-down vote--50 votes--after 50 hours of debate.

The leader violated plain statutory law, which requires us to have a budget by April 15 because he didn't want his Members to be accountable, but he blames Republicans for being obstructionists.

Fourth, for the first time in history, the Senate has abdicated the most fundamental requirement of Congress: responsible management of the money that the American people send here. We violated that requirement. Not a single appropriations bill was brought to the floor this year-- not 1. That is the first time in history. We researched this--there has never been a time in history when not a single appropriations bill was brought up before the Senate. Frequently we don't get them all done, so then a continuing resolution has to be passed to keep the government from being shut down.

Congress is supposed to pass the appropriations bills telling the President, and all his Cabinet people, how much money they have to spend in the next fiscal year that begins October 1 of every year. The President cannot spend any money Congress has not appropriated. That is a fundamental requirement of the Senate. That is not just an idle idea, it is a fundamental requirement.

So we get to the end of the year and nothing has been done so we passed a continuing resolution, a CR. We stacked 13 bills--1,000-plus pages of spending--in one continuing resolution, and we just funded the government with no amendments, no debate, and no discussion for 6 months. That is no way to run a government. Each one of those bills is supposed to be brought up: defense, highways, education, health care. People who have amendments are supposed to bring up ways to save money or spend more money on each one of those bills, and we are supposed to vote on them. For the first time in history we did not do that.

Perhaps this was a clever political maneuver. It avoided public debate and public accountability because we had an election coming up in November and we don't want to vote before an election.

Another example is the Defense Authorization Bill. The fiscal year concluded this year without us passing the Defense Bill. The Senate has passed the Defense Bill for 50 consecutive years. Yet, just a few weeks ago, well after the elections, we were finally able to pass the Defense bill.

The House has sent over a budget that lays out a firm financial course for America. They voted on that budget in public. They were prepared to defend and explain their budget. It would have changed the debt course of America. But what did the Senate do? Nothing. Did Republicans filibuster the budget? Did they block a budget from being brought up? No. Republicans demanded that we go through the process. We pleaded with them to have a budget hearing in the committee. We asked them to bring up the budget and noted that they have the power to pass a budget with a simple majority. That is a burden a majority party has, really--to bring up a budget and pass it. It is not easy. It is a challenge. But it is the first time we have ever gone 3 years--or maybe the first time ever we have gone through the situation in which they refused to even bring up a budget. We have had budgets fail in the past, but we haven't had one, to my knowledge, where we just go for years and refuse to even bring one up.

In that secret Budget Control Act deal, we set spending limits on most of the discretionary spending caps, but that is not a budget. There were no amendments. There were no public discussions, no committee hearings, no

floor debate, no 50 hours to deal with the great issues of our time.

One more point. The majority leader has been trigger-happy in filing cloture motions. We have altered the way the Senate operates. We have to plead with somebody to be able to get an amendment in the Senate today. It is amazing. This goes against the history of this institution.

The two great guarantees in the Senate, as Robert Byrd, the great majority leader and historian of the Senate, has said, are the right to debate and the right to amend. Those are fundamental. We are seeing an erosion of both.

So what does this cloture motion do? Senator Reid said: I am going to bring up a certain bill, and the Republicans can have five amendments.

Well, we have 15 amendments we want to debate--maybe more--on a bill. Somebody reminded me that the Panama Canal bill had 80 votes to give away the Panama Canal. It eventually got two-thirds votes and passed. It went through weeks of debate and lots of amendments. That is what the Senate is about. Now they say no amendments. So that begins to cause a problem.

The majority leader says: You have to filibuster. You won't agree to my limited number of amendments. You are obstructing. I am going to file the bill and immediately file cloture to end debate. So 30 hours goes by, has the vote to end debate, and says: All this time, the Republicans have been filibustering. The Republicans are obstructing.

I yield for a question.

Mr. President, the Constitution does trump the Senate rules. But I would ask my colleague if he is aware of any kind of history of the Republic where we didn't follow the existing Senate rules, which say we should have a two-thirds vote before we change the rules.

I have the floor, and I will yield for a question in just a second.

But I am not aware of that ever happening. I would ask my good attorney general colleague, who is familiar and understands tradition and the power of precedent, what would keep a Republican majority next year--or if they were to obtain one in the Senate--from changing the rules again and again and again?

The tradition in this Senate has been that to change the rules, we use a two-thirds vote, and we have adhered to that rule. There have been some threats to do the nuclear option, they call it, to use a simple majority to change the rules of the Senate, but it has not happened. I think that is a dangerous thing.

I would also ask my colleague to consider that because he is a young and popular Senator, and he is going to be here a long time--longer than I--and he may be in the minority. That might be a dangerous thought and it may be unimaginable for him today, but it can happen. We had 55 Senators just a few years ago. In two cycles, the Republicans went from 55 to 40.

So I just would say to the Senator, be careful about this. I know the Senator believes in debating, and he is capable at it, and he doesn't want to be able to put us in circumstances that would endanger that.

The point I was making is this: The problem in the Senate is not fundamentally the rules of the Senate; the problem in the Senate is a desire by the majority to move its agenda with a minimum of objection and to eliminate frustrating procedures that obstruct their ability to do what they think is good for America.

But I had that view too. When we had the majority, we wanted to pass the Bush tax cuts, 99 percent of which were extended 2 nights ago--the Bush tax cuts, which were passed for a limited period of time--10 years. Why? Because it took 60 votes to pass the tax cuts and our Democratic colleagues didn't want those tax cuts passed. It was passed through the budget. We requested to only do a 10-year budget. So they were passed as part of the budget process with 50 votes, but they could only last 10 years and then they expire. So that is the rule. They got extended. President Obama extended them once, but we got to the end, and they were about to expire on January 1, and everybody's taxes were going to go up. We had to pass a law to keep that from happening, and a compromise eventually was reached where most of the taxes stayed where they were and the taxes on the rich went up. I guess that is democracy in America, the way the Senate is supposed to work.

I will yield to my former U.S. attorney colleague without yielding the floor. He is younger, and a fine member of the Judiciary Committee and a capable Member of the Senate.

Mr. President, reclaiming the floor.

This is a good question. Let me tell my colleague how it

happens in the real world of the minority party.

Senator Reid will bring up a bill, and he will say he wants five amendments.

Senator McConnell will talk to Republicans, and they will say: Well, we have 15 amendments. We have a lot of things we want to vote on, some of them germane and some of them not germane.

Nongermane amendments are a historic and critical part of the history of the Senate. You two advocates would never want to give that up. I don't think my colleagues would if they have thought it through. And we are not going to give it up. We are not going to give up nongermane amendments, but there are limits on nongermane amendments.

So Senator McConnell says: Well, we have more amendments than that that we want.

Senator Reid says: I am filing the bill, and I am filling the tree, and nobody is going to get an amendment I don't approve.

So we said: Well, we have 15.

OK, Senator Reid says, I will take four.

Well, I have an amendment on immigration. I have one on taxes.

No, we are not going to vote on that one. We will take these three amendments, and that is it.

So Senator McConnell and his staff are talking to the Senators, saying: You have five amendments; I can only get you one. He will not accept this amendment. I have been told explicitly that you will not get this amendment or that amendment.

That is happening every day. And he will file cloture immediately and say the Republicans are filibustering when all we are doing is disputing whether or not we get 5 or 15 amendments. What are we here for if not to debate and offer amendments? Do my colleagues mean, in the great Senate of the United States, a Senator can bring up a bill-- maybe small in language, about the minimum wage, but it is a matter that invokes philosophical disputes--I will just say it that way.

For the bankruptcy bill, I think there were 60 amendments on that bill. It was a bitterly contested piece of legislation. We had a good number of amendments. Finally, when the Defense bill was brought up after the election just a few weeks ago we were able to get amendments. But still it was less than one would normally expect on a bill spending $600 billion. Well, at least we got amendments. The bill came up--it came out of committee unanimously.

They would not bring it up before the election mainly because we needed to fix the sequester. Senator Reid did not want to talk about that, so he refused, for the first time in 50 years, to bring up the Defense bill. But it finally got brought up. It went through a fairly regular process. People got their amendments, and the bill passed overwhelmingly and will become law.

So that is what the Senate is all about. Talk to people who have been around here, and they will tell you that. I remember standing right there. Senator Specter was a great Senator with a fabulous legal mind. I wanted something. I wanted him to agree to put something in the bill, and he would not agree. He did not want any more amendments. He wanted to wrap it up and get the final vote.

We argued a bit back and forth, and he looked at me and said, in effect: Well, you are a Senator. If you want your amendment, you get your amendment. It interrupted his day, his schedule. But if I insisted, I got my amendment. You are a Senator; you get your amendment.

Well, Senator Paul, he files a lot of amendments. But he is a Senator. He got elected in Kentucky saying he was going to come to Congress and shake up this place. But he does not get an amendment? Senator Reid says: No, you do not get amendments, or you only get this one.

They tried to hold him off from offering an amendment to cut foreign aid. Do you remember that? He would not yield. It went on. He was threatened: You are stopping the bill; you are going to kill the bill. He would not back down.

Finally--finally--they gave him an amendment. It went down by a big vote. It did not pass, but he got to advocate and ask why we were giving aid to a country that was abusing the rights of its citizens, and so forth.

So that is what the Senate is all about. That is all I am saying. This idea of speed is dangerous if it is denying the right of members to debate and offer amendments--if it is altering the nature of this great institution.

Colleagues, I think as a practical matter we have had good success with stacking votes. So if a person wants to speak on a bill, they can speak at 6 or 7 or 8 o'clock at night, and the votes could be held the next morning. It does not take long to have votes, 15 minutes or so to have a vote. We could have more votes and people would be satisfied.

With regard to nongermane amendments, I would suggest they do not come up again and again and again. Somebody campaigned on not giving foreign aid to Egypt, and they came here and they wanted to have an amendment. No, you cannot have it. Well, they are not going to offer the amendment on every bill. They are not going to offer it every year. They just needed to be able to have the American people see this Congress vote on that issue. I think we are better off allowing that to happen than not.

I will.

Mr. President, reclaiming the floor.

Reclaiming the floor, because I will yield the floor in a little bit, and the Senator can have an opportunity to talk, but I just want to follow up on that.

Was the final vote by two-thirds or not?

I know we lowered the filibuster; a different Congress did. My question is, Was it a two-thirds vote or not?

Right.

I like that.

Mr. President, reclaiming the floor.

I thank the Senator for his advocacy, but I do believe that final vote to change the rule was by a two-thirds vote. If you get a two-thirds vote, you can impose your will--when we do it. The question is, Can you change the rule by a simple majority?

I would say the Constitution does not say what the vote level should be, and it may be possible lawfully to ignore the Senate rule that says it takes a two-thirds vote to change the rules on the first day of session. It may be possible legally to do that.

But I would urge my colleagues not to do that. Just for short-term political gain, we are going to change the historic rules of the Senate, changing the rules of debate in this kind of way? It would be a dangerous alteration of the nature of the Senate, as so many of our more seasoned colleagues have warned us. I will just urge you not to do that.

I will say to both of my fine colleagues that an offer has been made, one I think I am not real happy with, by Senator McConnell. Negotiations are under way now to try to resolve some of the difficulties that are ongoing. But I would urge you to pull back and not pull the trigger on what has been called the nuclear option--to use a simple majority to change the rules of the Senate--which could change the very nature of how we do business and the qualities of the Senate that make it different from the House. That is my concern there.

So the filling of the tree--one more thing I would like to say about that. I had a chart on it. I think Trent Lott used filling the tree eleven times; Bill Frist, fifteen; it was used one or two times by previous majority leaders. But it has grown, and Senator Reid has filled the tree 70 times already.

Basically, without going into details, filling the amendment tree allows the majority leader to block amendments. Historically, there was no limit on amendments in the Senate. If a Senator had an amendment, he came to the floor and offered the amendment, and he would try to be courteous and not abuse his power, but he got a vote on the issues he believed were important.

We should not limit that. We should not have the majority leader rejecting certain amendments because he does not like them. Really the reason he rejects them is they are often tough amendments, uncomfortable votes for the Members of his conference, and he does not want a vote on a tough issue. So, he blocks it from ever being voted on to protect the Members from that.

I heard Senator Merkley--I see him on the floor--talk about his vision for a more open Senate. I have heard him talk about how he conducted himself as the speaker of the house in his home State and how it was more vigorous in debate, in open debate.

In sum, my colleagues, this is what has happened: The biggest change by far, the thing that is causing the angst in the Senate and disrupting the Senate--other than the majority's fundamental determination to avoid responsibility and avoid voting on the tough issues of this country; and that is a big one, and I have detailed that--but the fundamental thing is, this majority leader is consistently using the device of filling the tree to block the free flow of amendments, to reject certain amendments he does not like, and control the Senate in a way that is contrary to our history, contrary to our tradition, and contrary to the public interest.

We are having too much of the majority leader bringing up bills like this last fiscal cliff legislation. I warned months ago we were going to end up at the 11th hour and 59th minute. I wrote in the Wall Street Journal a month ago, they are waiting until the 11th hour, the 59th minute to bring up the bill so you have no amendments, you do not even get to read the thing--do not even get to read it. You get a summary of it--have to vote yes or no--or we go over the cliff. That is not the way this business ought to be done.

So I urge my good, vigorous colleagues, who believe in debate and openness, not to shut off debate, not to move in that direction, to focus on an open process by which these matters are debated openly and the American people can determine whom they agree with.

They might not like what I have to say. They might vote me out of office. I am sure it would make a lot of people happy.

I will yield briefly for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, regaining the floor.

There is no constitutional power for a leader. I love Mitch McConnell. He does not get to pick my amendments. Where did this come from? You just got elected. You have ideas. You ought to be able to come down here and advocate for your ideas. Traditionally, it has always been any Senator can offer an amendment.

As Arlen Specter said to me: Well, I do not agree, but you are a Senator. You want your amendment, you get your amendment.

That is the way the Senate is supposed to work. We will have done something dangerous if we get to the point where now I have got to go to Senator McConnell and plead with him, and then he has got to go to Senator Reid and say, well, Senator Sessions wants this amendment, he is insistent on it. Senator Reid would then have to approve and then he comes to me and he approves? Where did this come from? I am just telling you--you need to think about how the Senate is supposed to operate. It may take a few more votes; it will take some more votes. But that would be better than this process of groveling around here, pleading with somebody to give you a minute. Amendments--we have spent days, I think, since both of you have been here--think about it--days-- squabbling over amendments and not a single vote occurring.

To my colleague from Oregon, would the Senator disagree with this?

Would the Senator disagree?

Without yielding the floor, I yield for a question.

Alabama.

I know the Senator does.

Right. I think that is true.

Reclaiming the floor, I think the Senator is correct. I would

say both--it is not good. Why should they be picking your amendments? Why should Senator McConnell be picking your amendments? It is flabbergasting to me about how we came to this point. It is like a frog in the warming water. You have come to the process in the middle of it where the traditional rights of a Senator have been eroded, and you are trying to deal with that situation and craft a solution that is dealing with an alteration of our historical procedure. We should go back to those.

When I asked the question about time--and how few amendments we have and actually get votes on--I think people should understand what I am saying. The Senate will not slow down. It will not slow down if we have amendments. Most Senators will agree to make their arguments at a time when something else isn't happening on the floor. They get their vote, maybe the next day. I don't think that is the problem. The problem is leaders want to control the debate. I think those of us underlings sitting at the kiddie table, as somebody said, need to get in the game.

There is no constitutional power given to the majority leader or the minority leader. It is a matter of courtesy. As far as I am concerned, they work for us. They work for the Members of the Senate. We don't work for them, they work for us. They are supposed to facilitate our rights as Senators. We have acquiesced and allowed an erosion of those rights.

A person is not going to offer his amendment every month, every year. In a 2-year term, Senator Paul stood in there and finally got his amendment on foreign aid to Egypt. He is not going to offer it again next week. He had his vote and he lost.

I think there is just as much a hullabaloo about nothing if we would turn, quit filling the tree, quit attempting to control the flow of amendments in this body, we would shock ourselves how much better this body operates. I am tired of having to ask people for permission to file an amendment. That is where we are, and you should not have to do it.

The majority leader has got 1 vote out of 100, and I have got 1 vote out of 100. They meet in secret; they plot this bill on taxes. It comes up at the 11th hour. We don't get to read it and we don't get to amend it. Every Senator here and their constituents has been diminished in power by having that happen. We have got to stand up, all of us, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and defend the system. It will be better if we let it run as it is supposed to run-- good debate, good amendments, stand before the American people, be accountable for what you did, and go back home and defend your record.

I know there are some tough votes. It was a tough vote for me last night. I voted for that bill. I am not sure I did right, but I was confident it was the right thing to do. But I didn't like it because I didn't get to read it sufficiently. I didn't get to know what was in it sufficiently. It had things in it I didn't like. But in the long run I thought it was going to be best for the country to move this issue behind us and move on, so I would say that also.

The majority leader's sole power and strength comes from the ability to be recognized first. The majority basically selects Senator Cardin to preside. They trust him to preside. When the majority leader hits the floor, Senator Cardin is going to recognize the man who selected him. The majority leader of the majority party and all the presiding officers are members of the majority party--and I used to preside in that fashion when we had the majority. That is the way the system works.

I would conclude by telling my colleagues I have enjoyed this discussion and leave one bit of warning. If this were to go to the nuclear option and substantial changes were made to the free debate and the free right to amend in the Senate, this will not be accepted. It will be a historic and dramatic change in the nature of the Senate. This Senate--I have now talked to Members--will not go quietly. It will not be treated as a legitimate change. We will resist in every way possible, and we will have a most disagreeable and difficult time in the body. So I would urge my colleagues, keep working with this compromise and maybe something could come out of it. Everybody can accept advancing some of the ideas you would like and maybe dealing with some of the concerns I would like.

One more example of how this political body should operate was the Democratic majority--the minority, when President Bush was elected-- decided to filibuster Federal judges for the first time, systematically filibuster them. They were holding up nine, I believe, judges of high order. It went on for weeks, over a year, as I recall. Senator Frist threatened that they would use this procedure, or something like it. The result of that was a Gang of 14 reached an agreement and said there wouldn't be a filibuster of judges except in extraordinary circumstances. So the nuclear option never took place, the rules were never changed, but Members of the body in a collegial fashion agreed that, okay, we won't eliminate filibusters entirely, but we will only do it in extraordinary circumstances.

I think the best wisdom at this point is to draw back from the nuclear option to see if we can improve the way the Senate works and at that point we could perhaps improve the institution without endangering its fundamental character.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield briefly?

I will tell the Senator my concern and ask the Senator if he has a thought about it. I am uneasy about giving, for the first time, explicit power----

My concern, which I have expressed in my conference, is I don't like the idea that we codify in the rules explicit supersenatorial power to a chairman and a ranking member of a committee, and we have almost no recognition in our rules of the majority leader. This is a tradition; this is a way we operate.

Each one of us is 1 of 100. We are equal in our responsibilities and in our ultimate voting power if we don't allow it to be eroded. As I understand the rule, there would be four amendments, you know, guaranteed up front by leaders. Think about that, as I know you will be active, both of you, in the discussion of how to write these compromises, and I am hopeful we will reach one. But I wouldn't, in a nonpartisan comment--I am not sure we ought to further embed in our rules superpowers to one Senator or another group of Senators. Has the Senator thought about that?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I object to the voice vote and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask for time to speak on this point.

Madam President, this is the result of a compact that, to my knowledge, has not been brought before the Foreign Relations Committee. It commits us to direct spending permanently for entitlement-type spending that I do believe needs more careful review.

Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Tester's energy on this issue and desire to move forward with it. We do have a process for this kind of funding to occur. He would add $653 million in prospective wildlife mitigation spending and declare that as an emergency. This spending is better if handled through the regular appropriations process. It is actually moving forward faster. He is trying to make sure this money is set aside. This is not the time to do it, but I appreciate his interest.

I raise a budget point of order pursuant to section 314(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act. I raise a point of order against the emergency designation provisions contained in amendment No. 3350 to amendment No. 3395, the substitute amendment to H.R. 1, the vehicle for the Supplemental Appropriations Act.

I appreciate the Senator's efforts but do not believe this is the appropriate process at this time.

Mr. President, I respect my colleague's desire to get this matter done, but the language he is advocating is already in the Farm bill. We need to get the Farm bill passed, and I think we will soon. It is paid for and is within the budget limits, which was done by the Agriculture Committee.

This amendment defines ``disaster'' so broadly that it would include almost anything that results in a livestock death, and the taxpayers would be better served if we opposed this budget-breaking amendment. It is not an emergency since legislation is already in place that would take care of this issue. There are also other problems with this amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 314(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation provisions contained in amendment No. 3367 to amendment No. 3395, the substitute amendment to H.R. 1, the vehicle for the Supplemental Appropriations Act.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

To further extend my point of order, I ask that the budget point of order lie against both emergency designation provisions that are contained in amendment No. 3367 to amendment No. 3395.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss our Nation's need to adopt a balanced budget amendment and to bring the Senate's attention to the Alabama Legislature's recent call for Congress to send such an amendment to the States for ratification. This is a thoughtful and well-reasoned resolution. Many other States have made similar resolutions. Our Nation is on the precipice of the most predictable fiscal disaster in our history and Congress has failed to act to remove the danger. U.S. gross Federal debt is now over $16.3 trillion; U.S. debt per person is over $53,000, higher than that of Greece; and for the fourth straight year, our Nation's deficit will exceed $1 trillion. The Federal Government cannot continue spending more than it takes in, and the people of Alabama clearly know that.

The American people understand the necessity of living within one's means and balancing budgets. We see that as American families across the Nation are working to pay off their debt. In fact, American families have improved their balance sheets by reducing their outstanding credit card debt by 17 percent since 2008, over $150 billion. The people expect no less of their State governments. Forty- three of the 50 States, including my home State of Alabama, have balanced budget requirements.

Unfortunately, as States and families across the Nation cut spending and balance budgets, the Federal Government continues to spend more and has increased its debt by more than $4 trillion since 2008. This spending course will at some point wreck our economy, just as it has wrecked that of Greece, Spain, and Italy. Now, more than ever, it is crucial that Congress adopt a balanced budget amendment and send it to the States for ratification. The surging debt crisis we face is so significant that we must have a balanced budget constitutional amendment. It has come close to passing before. When Senators and Congressmen have no alternative but to live within their means, like so many of our States, they will figure out a way to do it. But if Congress is not required by the Constitution to

budget responsibly, then history has shown that Congress will not act responsibly.

The people of Alabama understand these issues and the importance of balancing the budget. That is why the Alabama State Legislature has passed a resolution urging Congress to send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. The people of Alabama are well aware of the dangers we face. Introduced by Senator Arthur Orr of Decatur, AL, with several of his colleagues in the legislature, this resolution acknowledges that ``the budget deficits of the United States of America are unsustainable and constitute substantial threat to the United States government.'' The resolution calls for Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment, and if the Congress fails to do so, then for Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose such an amendment. I applaud Senator Orr and his colleagues, Senators Scofield, Sanford, Holtzclaw, Williams, McGill, and Beason, for bringing attention to this issue and introducing this resolution. We will only see more grassroots movements like this to pass a balanced budget amendment if Washington continues to fail to meet the challenges of our time.

It is not just my constituents in Alabama who are upset. Recent polling has shown that this Congress has one of the lowest approval ratings in history. The American people are becoming disillusioned and losing faith in their elected government as we fail to address the crises of our day. Indeed, we are not even working openly to deal with this great challenge. It is sad that Congress cannot even perform its basic business, as seen in the failure of the Senate to pass one regular appropriations bill this year or a budget in nearly 4 years.

The Senate is supposed to be the world's great deliberative body. Unfortunately, the leader of this body and his majority party will not even propose a budget to the American people. When I came to the Senate in 1997, I voted for a balanced budget amendment that fell one vote short of the 67 it required for adoption. How much better off would we have been today, how much less debt would we have placed on our children and grandchildren had that amendment been passed? Last year, Republicans put forward a plan to cut, cap, and balance our Nation's budget which would have solved all our fiscal problems. But the Democrat majority would not let it pass.

I applaud the members of the Alabama legislature for adopting and Governor Robert Bentley for signing this resolution. House Speaker Mike Hubbard and Senate Pro Tempore Del Marsh and their members have spoken clearly. This resolution exhibits leadership and wisdom not found here in Washington, DC. It is time we listen to the States and to our constituents and adopt a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this resolution adopted by the Alabama Legislature and signed by Governor Robert Bentley urging the United States Congress to submit a balanced budget amendment to the States or to call a convention to propose such an amendment to the United States Constitution.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Navy CDR Jeffrey A. Bennett II. Commander Bennett served as a military fellow in my office since December of last year. He brought to public service the same passion and honor he brought to military service.

Commander Bennett is a 1992 US Naval Academy graduate who was nominated for the academy by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, several years ago.

He came to my office after a tour serving as captain of the USS Stockdale, an Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer. I know he was an excellent captain, indeed, I have personally observed Commander Bennett's abilities. I am very impressed. He has a good strategic grasp of America's challenges, while also mastering the details necessary to fully grasp military budget and financial issues, among other matters that we deal with.

His command of defense authorization and appropriations legislation from both the House of Representatives and the Senate has been exceptional. He consistently puts in late nights and long weekends studying the details of legislation affecting programs that are vital to our national defense and the State of Alabama.

More importantly, Jeff possesses excellent judgment. I have valued his judgment and insight on global issues as well as the more rigorous and detailed issues that come up in the Senate. I can say without hesitation, he has fulfilled the high reputation that the Navy Fellowship Program has earned in every way. He has been a tremendous resource to my office. He is a man of integrity, who puts his country first. He is committed to serving America in whatever role he is given. All the while, he carries out his duties with exceptional grace, collegiality, and positive spirit. I am exceedingly impressed with Jeff, both as a person, an officer, and a staff member.

His time in my office has gone too quickly. We will miss the force of his fine mind, his hard work, and his positive approach to all challenges. The Navy most surely has an unusually talented and valuable officer in Commander Bennett.

Commander Bennett has served my office with honor and distinction, truly personifying the qualities of a U.S. naval officer.

I would be remiss if I did not thank his wonderful wife Heather and his children Grace and Jay. As is the case with all our military families, we know that Commander Bennett's service is one supported and shared by the whole family. He is, indeed, a great family man.

I look forward to following his bright career and continuing service to God and country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, President Obama made a statement within the last hour or so. He called on Congress to act to avoid the fiscal cliff.

We know last night the House was unable to bring forward a bill that would deal with the fiscal cliff. Previously, they passed a bill that would have solved that problem and put us on the right path, but they did not pass another bill last night.

The Senate has not acted. There has been a lot of criticism of the House, that the House failed to pass legislation last night. However, the Senate has passed no legislation.

The President made a little speech this afternoon, and I take it as a serious statement. But previously he made a speech on his budget plan. It sounded good. It had a lot of things in it that sounded good. I believe Congressman Ryan, the budget chairman in the House, sent it to the Congressional Budget Office and asked that they score it. A score means they analyze how much taxes are going to be raised--exactly how much--how much spending is going to be increased or reduced, and then they lay out an analysis, called a score, of what that proposal actually will do. That is what how we are supposed to consider budgets here.

So they sent the President's previous speech over to the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office said: You cannot score a speech. Sorry. Well, you cannot score a speech.

We are about to come back in next week. Maybe they will try to finish Thursday, maybe go into Friday. But we do not need to have a serious matter involving more than $1 trillion of the U.S. taxpayer's money dropped on the Senate next Thursday without us being able to read it and analyze it and having it scored. We can't be expected to rubberstamp it like the old Soviet Politburo, the Duma, where leaders would put out the word to the members they would all vote just like that, 445 to 5 or something like that. And they called themselves a democracy.

We do not need that in the Senate. We, each Senator, represent individual Americans, millions of them. They expect us to know what we are voting on. Secret meetings and secret talks between just the Speaker and the President is not a good process. I do not know what is going on in these talks. I am the ranking member of the Budget Committee. I am just one Member of Congress who has a role in this process. Many others have a lot bigger role than I have, but none of us know what is going on in these secret meetings. But each Senator has an equal vote. Each Senator has an equal responsibility to represent their constituents.

So I am uneasy about this process. So I will just say this: Nobody should criticize the House of Representatives for not producing legislation last night until they have passed their own proposal. The Senate has had just as much time as the House to lay out a plan. Months ago the House laid out a 10-year budget plan that would put America on a sound financial course.

Everybody can have different views on it, but it is a comprehensive plan that would start reducing our deficits and put us on a good long- term course. It has been complimented by people on both sides of the aisle. Meanwhile, the Senate has produced nothing. We have gone 3 years without a budget. We have not had a serious and broad debate about the financial challenges of America. Senator Conrad had a number of very important hearings with witnesses 2 years ago in the Budget Committee. We talked about the issues. No bill was brought forth in committee that was actually marked up. That was a decision made by the Democratic leadership. They decided not to bring forth a budget. It was calculated. They never brought one forward despite the fact the law requires one. The United States Code requires a budget be brought up by April 1. They decided not to do so and would take the criticism from people like me. They took their lumps and never brought a budget forward.

Now for 3 years, they never produced a concurrent budget, but they have had great fun attacking Congressman Ryan in the House, who passed a budget, a comprehensive, historic budget that would change the debt course of America--never having produced anything. But we have had a number of speeches, a lot of speeches, a lot of outlines, a lot of proposals and schemes and plans, difficult to score, and never finally reaching fruition so that they could actually be considered by this body.

So I guess what I would conclude with is to say I am glad the President discussed the budget problem in a little speech this afternoon. He has an entire Treasury Department. He has a Director at the Office and Management and Budget overseeing hundreds of budget experts. They have more than enough capability to produce detailed financial plans and make these plans public. He could make his detailed plan public today. Presumably, he would not have made a speech today if someone in the OMB or the White House or the Treasury Department had not approved the outline of his plan. At the very least, that outline ought to be placed in print for everyone to see.

Senator Reid should bring it up on the floor. It should be sent to the Congressional Budget Office to be scored. It should be analyzed. They should do that long before the Senate meets next Thursday. It should have been done a month ago.

I do find it odd--think about this--that the President has not laid out a plan since the election over a month ago. He won the election. He said certain things he wants to see in a plan, higher taxes and more spending. Indeed, he had some spending cuts. He said: My plan cuts spending. But he has failed to note and acknowledge that the plan, as reportedly laid out by Secretary of Treasury Geithner in closed meetings, had far more spending increases than spending cuts. So the President's proposal as laid out by Secretary Geithner, on net, increases spending. It increases spending, it does not reduce spending.

It has some reductions of spending in it, but spending increases overwhelm the spending reductions. So it is not right, is it, for the President of the United States to say: I have a plan to cut spending. He has been meeting in secret with Boehner, so we have to base this on reports, but this is what it appears to do.

I believe Senator Reid would serve the President well if he called him up and said: Let's get that fiscal cliff proposal over here and have your team meet with my staff, and we will publish it on Saturday. Congress can begin to look at it, and maybe we can beat this January 1 deadline and not go over the cliff. That would be my suggestion as to how we should proceed, and every Senator should have as much time as possible to study it. It should be made available to the House because they would ultimately also be called on to vote on it. Everyone should see it as soon as possible. That is the way government should be run.

I have written an op-ed, printed in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, that says America would really be better off had we used the legitimate committee process of the Senate to address this problem. The President can advocate for his views, the Republicans can advocate for their views, and the Democratic Senators can advocate for their views. We would actually have votes, and some of them would be tough votes, but we can begin to see where we stand, where the votes are.

If somebody wants to raise taxes and it gets voted down and somebody wants to cut taxes and it gets voted down--those votes happen over a period of time, and the numbers are all out there for everyone to see. At that point, it is much easier to tell your constituents: I have truly fought for the things I believe.

Now, I think it is best for America that we reach a compromise. That would be better than this process by which the whole Senate sits while the Speaker of the House and the President of the United States meet to develop a plan that we are presumably expected to, like the old Communist Duma, ratify at the eleventh hour without time to actually study it, with no real input. That is how this government, this Senate, was meant to work.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that CDR Jeff Bennett be allowed permission to occupy the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Cornyn and Senator Hatch. Both of them have spoken eloquently and correctly about the absolutely unique and exceptional contributions Jon Kyl has made to America and to the U.S. Senate.

There is no Senator I have admired more, no Senator I look to more to decide how to cast my vote, and I mean that absolutely as a fact. The words they have used I am not so eloquent as to say, but they do not overstate the value of my friend Jon Kyl.

His statement that we just heard is a comprehensive analysis, overview of the current situation of this great Republic of which we are a part. He meant every word of it. One of the most remarkable things about it is that on every vote, every time an issue came up, those are the values he sought to advance. And sometimes you have to take a step back to gain two steps forward, but Senator Kyl always had a vision for what America should be. I believe it is the correct vision that we have inherited from our ancestors that has made this country so productive and so valuable. Everything he has done, every effort he has made has been to advance those good values--a great America, a decent America. And he has understood it.

When he talks about free enterprise, he explains why that is preferable to other forms of distribution of wealth. Would you rather have politicians distribute the wealth in this country? He can articulate that in a way that emphasizes the moral power of it, the need to have peace in the world, but how do you have it? Do you get peace through weakness or do you have peace through strength? And are the nuclear issues necessary to our posture as a strong nation in the world that is resistant and deters attack? Yes, they are. He understands those issues.

I serve on the Armed Services Committee. Jon does not, but he knows more about that issue than I do. And I have found his leadership so valuable because it is a thankless task. People do not want to talk about it, but he has talked about it. He knows it is important, even though no one would give him credit politically for being engaged in those issues. But it is important for America, and he is willing to commit himself to that.

I will join with Senator Hatch and Senator Cornyn in my admiration for Jon's service on the Judiciary Committee. That is an important committee, and he has been a rock-solid member of it. Even though he has been in the leadership, so therefore he did not chair the committee--which he would have been one of the great chairmen we would have ever had of that committee--but he has moved the committee and brought forth issues and advocated principles that are consistent with the great American rule of law.

Today we just got word that Robert Bork died. He had a classical view of how the Constitution should be interpreted and one I basically share for the most part. I think Jon has. He understands those issues. He is able to communicate the great richness of the American heritage of law to the common people in language people can understand, but he is also capable of reading the most complex legal document and being able to spot problems with it and advocate changes in law that are sophisticated in the most technical details.

I guess I would have to say Senator Hatch is correct. This Senate, in my view, has never had a better lawyer than Jon Kyl. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court in his private practice days. Not many have been a part of that.

So whether we are talking about the crime victims advocacy efforts he has made over a long period of time here, recognizing that the law should be in existence to advance and protect innocent people against the wrongdoers, and that we ought not to become so obsessed with defendants' rights that we do not remember the victims who deserve vindication and remuneration for the crimes that have been put upon them.

There are other things I could say and other issues we have joined in, that we have fought on. On more than one occasion, Jon has felt something was important. Sometimes those issues were not very popular, but he believed they were important and would rally people. I have joined with him. We have had some good battles. We have won a few, frankly, several I never thought we were going to win. But somehow, with his legislative skill, his determination, his feisty spirit, we stayed in there and bad things did not occur, at least from my perspective, that may have occurred otherwise.

It is a great pleasure to have served with Jon. I consider him--I know the grammar is not perfect--our most invaluable Senator. So we are going to be losing someone of great national importance. I know he will be active. He has got a fabulous wife, Caryll. They have been partners for so many years. I enjoy watching them and how they interact as a family. He has the values that reflect the highest qualities of American life.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I first wish to congratulate my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, who has been honored to receive one of the Senate's highest honors, President pro tempore of the Senate. I congratulate him and join with him in expressing my sadness over the passing of Senator Dan Inouye.