Floor Statements

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a question--Senator Kyl. You have been a practicing lawyer and a successful one. You negotiated a lot of agreements here in the Senate.

To follow up on what Senator Graham said, it seems to me that at the very heart of this treaty is a very apparent misunderstanding about the meaning and ability of the United States to deploy a missile defense system. When two serious parties enter into negotiations on a matter as serious as nuclear weapons, isn't it a basic part of a good agreement that there are no misunderstandings on important issues?

It seems to me quite clear from repeated Russian statements that they are taking a position very fundamentally contrary to the one the United States should be taking.

I have been here for a couple hours.

Reserving the right to object, I would not be able to finish my full remarks on this tonight. I mean, I could later tonight, at the end of that, in my 30 minutes, or tomorrow.

The amendment, and I would ask to be added on at the end or in the morning.

Thirty minutes.

Mr. President, I just want to say a couple of things. First, the treaty is important, but its----

Mr. President, a treaty of this nature is very important. I have served as chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which deals with missile defense and nuclear issues. I think we dealt with it in more detail involving the budgets and those kinds of things than the Foreign Relations Committee that is handling this bill.

I would say it is very important to know how we got to where we are. I think it is very important that we understand the significance of what is happening and the meaning of it. It is going to take some time to do that. A lot of things that have been said this afternoon I don't think fully capture what has happened, and I believe it ought to be corrected.

I would say with regard to missile defense that I have been involved in that for 14 years since I have been in the Senate on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of Armed Services. I think I know something about it. And I have to disagree with my distinguished colleague, one of the most distinguished Members of this Senate, that the Russians did not win on missile defense. They have already won and have attempted to codify it in this treaty. It is a very serious matter. I feel that we are going to have to take some time to go through it and understand how we got where we are.

I know it is late on this night, but it is not because I want to be here; it is because this Senate, under the majority, has not been able to move appropriations bills or pass other legislation, and it has all now been jammed up after this election into this lameduck Congress. Now we are not going to be rushed. We should not be rushed.

I would add one more thing. I cannot understand and I am deeply disappointed that the Russians have been

so intransigent, hardheaded about this treaty and other relations with the United States. We had every reason to believe and expect and hope we would be moving forward with Russia today in a far more close and harmonious relationship. I cannot understand why, for example, the Russians are negotiating a treaty that gives less inspection capability to the United States than they had before. If they have nothing to hide, what is going on here? I am concerned about this.

Finally, as to whether the treaty is essential, I would note that we don't have a nuclear treaty with the UK--England. We don't have one with France. We don't have one with China. We don't have one with India. We don't have one with Pakistan. We don't have to have this treaty. If it is not a good treaty, we ought not to sign it.

Mr. Feith negotiated the START treaty with the Russians. He told them no on issue after issue, these very same issues, as he recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal in an op-ed, and eventually they accepted the American position. The very issues they raised that Mr. Feith and President Bush rejected have been accepted as a part of this treaty.

Let's talk about a few things that happened. In July of 2006, North Korea tested a ballistic missile, leading many, including myself, to the conclusion that the long-range missile threat against the United States from a rogue threat was imminent. This was constantly talked about on the floor of the Senate, in committee, and, in particular, our subcommittee. A lot of people do not know. We try to be responsive to threats.

What is the threat? The North Korean threat not only increased in the intervening years, but it is also compounded by the reality that Iran has also developed a ballistic missile capability, leading to a recent intelligence estimate that stated that ``with sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015.'' By 2015--that is our intelligence estimate, and we generally rely on what they tell us about what they estimate.

So how is this national security imperative--an agreement that we are dealing with today and one that would reduce our nuclear arsenal while our enemies are building theirs up--helpful to us?

The truth is, fundamentally, we spent weeks on this. The administration had its top people working on this treaty with Russia that the Russians negotiated so vociferously because they really weren't concerned about it, frankly, whether it was signed or not, and they knew we wanted it worse than they did. But why have we not been discussing what is really serious; that is, Iran and North Korea and their development of nuclear weapons, how they threaten their neighbors, how North Korea has attacked South Korea, our ally, with which we are bound in a mutual defense treaty, attacked them and killed civilians and military personnel just a few weeks ago. These are the critical issues this Nation ought to be dealing with, and we ought not to at this time be weakening our national missile defense system.

In London, in 2006, I made a talk in which I said I believe we reached a bipartisan consensus on going forward with a missile defense system for the United States and that we were going to plant a missile defense system in Poland, with radar in the Czech Republic, and that the budget had just been approved under the Democratic majority, and I thought that represented a bipartisan agreement to move forward with ground-based interceptors in Europe. And it could have been done. It was expected originally to be capable of being deployed by 2013. Because Congress delayed and funding was not always there, it was set to be deployed by 2016. Remember, the Iranians are capable of hitting the United States, according to the intelligence estimate, by 2015, and we were trying to be sure we met that. We were going to use basically the same system that is utilized in Alaska, utilized in California, that we have in the ground right now to be deployed in Europe.

Many leftists in the United States and some in Europe opposed that, and it was somewhat controversial. I never understood why. The Russians did not like it. They did not like it, but the Czechs and the Poles stood up, they faced down the people who objected, and they were supportive of it. We were planning to go forward when President Bush left office. That is the basic status.

It was in the summer of 2008 that the Bush administration actually signed agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to install the 10 ground-based interceptors and a fixed radar base in the Czech Republic. At the same time, Candidate Obama said he would support deployment of ballistic missiles that were ``operationally effective.''

The day after the U.S. Presidential election, November 5, 2008, President Medvedev in Russia stated that Russia would deploy short- range missiles to the region of Kaliningrad, Leningrad, which borders Poland, if the United States proceeded with their site. It was a threat to the new administration. In typical Russian fashion--issue a threat and test the new President.

Then on January 15, 2009, at the nomination hearing for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy, she was asked this by Chairman Levin:

On the European missile defense issue, do you believe that

it would be important to review the proposed European missile

defense deployment in the broader security context of Europe,

including our relations with Russia, the Middle East, and to

consider those deployments or that deployment as part of a

larger consideration of ways in which to enhance ours and

Europeans' security?

Ms. Flournoy replied:

Yes, I do, sir. I think it is an important, candid issue

for the upcoming quadrennial defense review.

That is our internal defense review. What was that question? That question suggested we might not should go forward without Russia and we should consider how it could affect the relationship.

Within 2 weeks of that hearing, in late January of 2009, but not long after the President had taken office, the Russian media reported that Moscow had cancelled the deployment of these missiles in the Kaliningrad area because the Obama administration was not ``pushing ahead'' with the third site.

Now, that is pretty stunning. The third site has been a part of our strategic policy for years. The President and Secretary of State under President Bush said they had worked hard to negotiate with the Poles and the Czechs, had gotten their agreement. They had publicly stood up, their leaders had, to defend this third site. Here, the President is waffling right off the bat in the face of Russian pressure.

On February 7, at the annual Wehrkunde Conference, Vice President Biden stated:

We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter

growing Iranian capabilities. We will do so in consultation

with our NATO allies and Russia.

Well, Russia did not want this. They had never wanted this. But President Bush did not let it stop him. President Obama's statement was followed by an announcement from Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn, and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, James Cartwright, in 2009, in the summer, that the administration was reviewing its defense options in Europe.

Finally, on September 17, 2009, President Obama delivered a bombshell announcement, stunning and surprising and embarrassing our Czech and Polish allies, and announced his decision to cancel the European third site, saying: This new approach ``will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems and offer greater defenses against the threat of missile attack than the 2007 European missile defense program.''

So I have been involved. Let me parenthetically say this new system he talks about would be better was not even on the drawing board. There was no development planned for this new system, the SM-3 Block 2B. It was not on the drawing board. They conjured it up out of thin air and said: We will have it developed by 2020, when we had a two-stage, ground-based interceptor capable of being deployed by 2016. The Iranian threat, remember, is to be ripe by 2015.

I would just say to generals and others who think this is such an easy deal, how many appropriations processes do we have to go through without failing on a single one to develop an entirely new SM Block 2B by 2020 that is not even on the drawing board today?

What kind of difficulties may occur? We had the bird in hand. We let it go

for a bird in the bush. This was a huge concession. Let's go a little bit further. How did it happen? The President, and his negotiators for this treaty, have insisted there is no connection between their negotiations and missile defense: We have not conceded a thing on missile defense. It is a win for us on missile defense. Senator Kerry said it would not lessen our ability to do a missile defense program.

So I would just go a little further. The New START negotiations with the Russians concluded in March of 2010. But they began in March of 2009, before the President canceled the Polish site. So what happened was, as part of the negotiations over this treaty, the Russians made absolutely clear they were not happy and did not want, and would not accept, a missile defense system in Europe, the same thing they told President Bush.

But President Bush did not acquiesce. They said: We do not have to have a treaty. We are going to reduce our weapons systems anyway. We will reduce our weapons system. We will not have a treaty. We do not think you are going to attack us, and we are not interested in attacking you. We do not have to have a treaty. But if we have a treaty, we are not conceding our missile defense system one with, and we believe Poland and the Czech Republic are sovereign nations. If they want to enter into an agreement with the United States to put a missile defense system there, you, Russia, sorry, do not have a veto over it. They no longer are under the Communist boot. They are a free nation.

That is the way all of that went down. I think that is a fair summary of what happened. The Bush GMD, the ground-based midcourse defense plan, was based on proven technology and was deployable and a new phase-adaptive approach is way out in the future. It is so far out in the future, this President will not be in office, if he is reelected, to see that it happens. It is a promise in the vapors.

Now, what am I saying? Why am I concerned about this? I just want to repeat that the essence of what happened was, the administration, in negotiating with the Russians, faced a hard-headed approach, typical Russian negotiating strategy, and they blinked. They have always been defensive about it, however. They always did not want it to be believed that this treaty, in any way, compromised our missile defense systems. And their Members have been on the floor defending that.

I am not sure they know all of what I am saying to you. But it is plain to me. I was involved in it. This little quote recently in the Washington Post from Greg Thielmann, a former professional staffer on the Select Committee on Intelligence, stated, concerning the missile defense provisions in the New START treaty:

One of the greatest ironies is that he--

President Obama--

made sure there was no way to attack the treaty as being

tough on missile defense.

You see, the President had a spin. That spin was, nothing in this treaty weakens missile defense. But the truth is it had already been weakened. They already canceled a decade-old policy of the United States to place a missile defense system in Europe and backed off of it and gave us, instead, a bird in the bush way out in the future, a new system not even under development.

Why? Well, it was to walk a fine line, I would suggest, to give into the Russians, on the one hand, and to be able to come back to Congress on the other and say they have not given in. The Russians issued a unilateral statement after the START treaty had been announced that the treaty would be viable only if ``there was no qualitative or quantitative build up'' in U.S. missile defense capabilities.

Well, a lot of you say that does not mean anything. They can say what they want. But as we discussed earlier, at best, there is a very serious misunderstanding between the parties in this treaty. When you have a serious misunderstanding that goes to the heart of what a treaty is about, you do not need to go forward, just like you would not do so with a contract that was being signed. The parties clearly have a misunderstanding of quite a significant nature--about the nature of the contract.

What about foreign policy experts? What have they said? Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Doug Feith, wrote this in the Wall Street Journal very recently:

The incoming Obama administration was eager to repudiate

its predecessor's policy. Russian officials saw their

opportunity. They asked again for the concessions that they

had before unsuccessfully demanded of Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama

agreed to treaty language linking offensive reductions with

missile defense, limiting launch vehicles and restricting

conversions of ICBMs for missile defense purposes. Mr.

Obama's poor negotiating is a cautionary tale: If you want it

bad, you get it bad.

Well, I remember early on in this process, in private briefings--and I can say what I said to officials there; it is not in any way classified. I said: I am concerned you want this treaty too badly and the Russians will take advantage of that.

I think that is what happened. They wanted this treaty so badly as a symbol, as an effort to express leadership, and to advance an agenda of the hard left in America that does not always like nuclear weapons and things. They have never liked missile defense.

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who had done her advanced work on Russia, said this recently--she has indicated she would like to see the treaty confirmed. Very significantly, Secretary Rice said:

Still there are legitimate concerns about New START that

must and can be addressed in the ratification process.

Must be addressed in the ratification process. She goes on:

The Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying

this treaty, the United States is not reestablishing the Cold

War link between offensive forces and missile defense. The

New START treaty preamble is worrying in this regard as it

recognizes the interrelationship of the two.

They say, well, it does not mean much. But it was signed by both Russia and the United States. It means something.

The New York Times, on November 29, reported this, again, to show how we got into this mess concerning diplomatic cables:

Throughout 2009, the cables show the Russians vehemently

objected to American plans for a ballistic missile defense

site in Poland and the Czech Republic. In talks with the

United States, the Russians insisted that there would be no

cooperation on other issues until the European site was

scrapped. . . . Six weeks later, Mr. Obama gave the Russians

what they wanted: he abruptly replaced the European site with

a ship-borne system.

That is my observation. I was in the middle of all of these negotiations. We had hearings on these matters. That is what happened. So I can only conclude that the administration negotiated away a necessary missile defense system in Europe, the ability to deploy a proven system at the expense of our national security, at the expense of our NATO allies' security, because they were too anxious and too committed to this treaty, for what purpose I am not sure.

All this time we have been working on this and the biggest concern to America is other nuclear threats, proliferation and the like.

Mr. Hoagland said in the Washington Post a few days ago that this treaty didn't go far enough. We ought to go to 500 weapons or lower. If you continue to draw down the weapons system, we cease as a Nation to be seen as a credible nuclear power. We encourage others, in my opinion, to develop their own systems, even to the belief that they could be a peer competitor with the United States. This is not a step toward progress and security.

The steps we should take are steps that send clear, unmistakable messages that we believe in our freedom, our integrity, and we are prepared to defend it. We are going to maintain a strong nuclear arsenal necessary for that goal. Once that occurs and we are unequivocal in it and we are prepared to build missile defense systems to defend ourselves from Iran or North Korea or some rogue nation, to defend ourselves against even, I would say, an accidental launch from one of these nations or even Russia, those things are good for peace and good for security. We cannot give them away after 30-plus years of development of a missile defense system that people said would never work. We have proven that we do have a system that can work. It can help protect America. It can give our President strength in negotiating with a nation that happens to have missiles that can reach the United States because he can look them in the eye and say: Send off a missile. We will knock

it down. You are not pushing us around. That kind of thing is important. I believe this administration, through the negotiation of this treaty, through their unilateral actions during the time of negotiating the treaty to capitulate on the European site and alter it dramatically, has done something unfortunate. So while the Europeans say this SM-3 is OK and they can live with it, I suppose they can, but we lost something significant. We lost at least 5 years in being able to deploy a system that we need right now.

I know others want to speak. I respect differences of opinion. But the scenario I have given I believe is correct. I am telling the truth. I believe a lot of Senators have not been aware of it. If I am wrong, let's talk about it. But let's don't run this treaty through so fast that we don't have an opportunity to fully understand what this administration has committed our Nation to in such a way that it could weaken our security and create more instability in the world instead of greater stability. Just signing an agreement on a piece of paper does not create security. A consistent, principled, just approach to our legitimate national defense, advocated clearly and forthrightly without misunderstanding, is the best way to have security in this dangerous world.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I say to Senator Kyl, you, as a lawyer, have negotiated agreements. It seems to me, what I hear you saying is, the United States enters into a binding treaty, equivalent to a party entering into a binding contract, but the other party has laid a groundwork that allows them to exit the treaty and the contract whenever they want to, in essence. Is that correct?

Further, it is not a question of whether the U.S. diplomats and negotiators are telling the truth and the Russians are not telling the truth. It is a question of, is there a meeting of the minds? It is a question of what is in the Russian mind as to whether they could have a right to leave the treaty if we proceed with the missile defense?

I thank the Chair.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, as we begin consideration of the New START treaty, we must understand that the proposal is not made in a vacuum. In one sense, it is an important part of our Nation's strategic policy. I have served as chairman, ranking member, and a member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, for 12 years in the Senate. Thus, on these matters of nuclear policy and missile defense that have been before us so many times, I have had a front-row seat on it.

Our President, whose work and proposals absolutely deserve fair and just consideration in the Senate, after appropriate debate, has stated that this treaty is a critical part of his approach to strategic issues, repeatedly insisting that it is needed so the United States can set an example and show leadership in moving toward what he has often stated to be his goal--a nuclear-free world.

This treaty now comes at a time when our Nation is the world's only nuclear power. We are the only nuclear power to have no nuclear production facility ongoing at this time. It will have to be reconstituted. That has been a sore spot in this Congress for quite a number of years, but it has not happened.

For over a decade, the Senate's efforts to modernize our aging weapons stockpiles--which our scientists have told us are getting to a point where they have to be fixed--have been blocked by House Democrats, mostly, and some Republicans there. We have gotten bills out of the Senate to do this, but they have failed in the House. It has been an article of faith on the left in America and abroad on the international left that our goal must be to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the world. President Obama and his administration have often used that rhetoric. But our modernization capability hasn't been started, and that is a troubling situation. As Secretary Gates has said about modernization, we cannot continue at this rate.

In 2008, I sponsored legislation to create a bipartisan commission of experienced statesmen to do a study of our nuclear posture. The legislation passed and the Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States did its work. It was headed by Dr. William J. Perry and James R. Schlesinger, a former Defense Secretary of this country--a Democrat and Republican. They reached a consensus on a number of key issues. They concluded that we could reduce our nuclear stockpile more than the current number, but that ``modernization is essential to the nonproliferation benefits derived from the extended deterrent.'' So they said it was essential to have a modernization program.

I know a lot of the discussion has been ongoing about that. I do believe Senator Kyl has done an excellent job in raising this issue, and the administration responded positively in some regards. The Commission also, nicely, in diplomatic language, deflected the administration's goal of zero nuclear weapons by saying:

It's clear that the goal of zero nuclear weapons is

extremely difficult to attain and would require a fundamental

transformation of the world political order.

I think that is about as close as you come from a bipartisan commission expressing serious concerns about this policy. Meanwhile, China, Russia, Pakistan, and India continue to expand their stockpile, while rogue, outlaw nations, such as North Korea and Iran, posing great risk to world peace, advance their nuclear weapons programs.

We will need to talk about this more as this debate goes forward. It is quite clear that the greatest threat to world peace and nuclear danger arises from the rogue nations and other nations that have less secure situations than the Russians do. While it could be very beneficial to have a good treaty with the Russians, this is not the core of the danger this Nation faces today.

We have had very little work, very little success, in getting the kind of robust support from Russia and China that we should have regarding North Korea and Iran. It is inexplicable to me why they would jeopardize their reputation as a positive force in the world to curry favor with rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. But this administration has been unsuccessful in gaining the kind of support to ratchet up the sanctions to get those countries that could perhaps make a difference.

The Russians are steadfast in their nuclear program. They have absolutely no intention of going to zero nuclear weapons. I had an opportunity to talk to some of their people, and it is pretty clear to me they thought it was outside the realm of good judgment to discuss going to zero nuclear weapons. They were never going to zero nuclear weapons. They have a 10-to-1 advantage over the United States in tactical nuclear weapons--more maneuverable--and this treaty does absolutely nothing to deal with that situation. The Russians may make some changes in the future, perhaps, but I don't think they are going to do much on tactical nuclear weapons. It is a critical part of their defense strategy.

We understand Russia is willing and has plans at this time to reduce their strategic nuclear stockpile, which is what this treaty deals with, not the tactical weapons, and that is because it represents a necessary economic move for them. Frankly, I don't think they see the United States or Europe as the kind of strategic threat they used to be, and they are willing to pull down those numbers. It is a good thing, and we should celebrate what gains we can obtain.

Some close observers believe this treaty curtails the U.S. programs, such as missile defense, while not curtailing certain Russian modernization programs of the systems they want to advance. In short, the Russians seem to have negotiated more effectively than the United States in this treaty. That is my observation. We wanted it too desperately. I warned our negotiators that they were too committed, too desperate to get this treaty. It would make more difficult the negotiation also with the Russians. I think that has proven to be true.

Let me be plain about my overall concern. First, the idea that it should be the goal of this country to move toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons is not just a fantasy, a wild chimera or some harmless vision; I think it is dangerous. It can only raise questions about the quality of the judgment that underlies our strategic policy.

The question arises, is the fierce determination of this administration to get a treaty a part of their stated goal of moving to zero nuclear weapons and setting ``an example'' for the world? Is the United States of America, under whose nuclear umbrella resides a host of free and prosperous nations, no longer reliable as a nuclear power? We know many other nations that are part of our nuclear umbrella are worried about our nuclear policy. I can understand that. How far, how low does this world leadership role take us? How few weapons should we go to? Down further from 1,500, as this treaty would have it--and that might be a sustainable number--to 1,000 or 500? Well, not 500, somebody would say. But I note that Mr. Jim Hoagland, writing in the Washington Post on December 10, declared that the treaty fails, in his view, because the numbers are not low enough. He says that ``500 or fewer'' would be sufficient.

Well, will this example of reducing our weapons cause other nations to follow our good example? I think not. If Iran and North Korea risk their security and their financial soundness on building a nuclear arsenal today, will our example cause them to stop? I think not. Rather, I must conclude it will embolden them. As our weapon numbers fall lower and lower, these rogue nations can begin to see clearly their way to being a peer nuclear competitor of what is now the world's greatest military power. Why would we want to encourage them in that fashion? I think it is a risky goal.

Thus, to the extent that the treaty is an effort to advance the stated goals of this administration--a nuclear-free world--the treaty will be counterproductive and dangerous, I think. If that is what it is about, it is counterproductive, and it will enhance and encourage other nations to have nuclear weapons, and any country that has advanced under our nuclear umbrella who does not now have nuclear weapons may decide they have to have their own, further proliferating nuclear weapons.

At the Halifax International Security Forum a few weeks ago, supported by the German Marshall Fund, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy repeated the administration's goal of zero nuclear weapons, and further stated, ``It is a vision. It's an aspiration.'' She acknowledged, ``It may not happen in our lifetimes.'' I can tell you it is not happening in our lifetimes, with a high degree of certainty.

The name of the panel, by the way, had a little bit of an irony to it. It was ``A World Without Nukes, Really?'' Good question. So some of my Democratic colleagues may say these statements about ``no nukes'' or, you know, they are just rhetoric, you have to say those things to keep the President's political left in line. The President is not really serious about it. It is not a real goal of his.

Well, I do not know. America leaders usually mean what they say. He has not renounced the policy. Secretary Flournoy was repeating it a few weeks ago at an international conference. I've got to say, a lot of people were not too impressed with that policy, frankly, from our allies around the world.

Even if the President is not telling us accurately what his philosophy is, these words do not mean anything. He is throwing out astonishing visions about what he would like to happen, the lamb lying down with the lion. What else is he not serious about as we consider this treaty? If one is not accurate about matters as significant as nuclear weapons, we have a grave problem of leadership in this country. Does it mean the President favors modernization of our stockpile? He says so. But, in essence, he has conditioned that support on passing of the treaty when we need to modernize the stockpile whether or not we have a treaty.

Does this give me confidence that the President is clearheaded about our nuclear policy when the Secretary of Defense and former Secretary of Defense and the laboratory directors and the top military people have, without exception, said we need to modernize our nuclear forces, and he is only going to support it if this Congress ratifies the treaty? I do not feel good about that. A lot of people have opposed modernization. They think modernization is a step toward more nuclear weapons, in their mind, and we ought to eliminate nuclear weapons, not have more.

That is, frankly, where the President's political ancestry is. That is where he came from politically. So forgive me if I am not real comfortable about this. Does the President mean it when he says he has not compromised and will not compromise our ability to deploy strategic missile defense systems in Europe?

There is a rub here. Some in this relativistic, postmodern world may not have the slightest concerns that our Commander in Chief's words are ambiguous on matters such as this. They do not believe much in the authority of words anyway. But call me old fashioned. I think words are important. These words that I am hearing worry me. So these views that are fantastical place a cloud of unreality over this entire process.

Secondly, I am not persuaded that this administration has not retreated on nuclear missile defense to a significant degree. I am not persuaded that that has not occurred. For example, the latest WikiLeaks reveal that the administration negotiated away President Bush's plan for a forward missile defense site in Poland in exchange for the Russian cooperation. The New York Times summarized these cables on November 29:

Throughout 2009, the cables show, the Russians vehemently

objected to American plans for a ballistic missile defense

site in Poland and the Czech Republic. . . . In talks with

the United States, the Russians insisted that there would be

no cooperation on other issues until the European site was

scrapped. . . . Six weeks later, Mr. Obama gave the Russians

what they wanted: he abruptly replaced the European site with

a ship-borne system.

So it makes me a bit nervous. We had a plan to place that in Europe, a two-stage system instead of the three stage we have in the United States, to give us redundant coverage from Iranian attack, and the Russians did not like it. They did not want a missile defense system on their border, even though, at best, it would have only minimal support against a massive number of missiles that they have. We were only going to put 10, I think, in Poland. But they objected. They objected. The Bush administration stood firm. They got the last treaty by standing firm. Indeed, former Secretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith wrote an article in one of the major newspapers, an op-ed, I think the Wall Street Journal, saying that they said no, and eventually the Russians agreed to sign.

He raised an important issue. I want to share this with my colleagues whom I know believe so deeply we have to have this treaty or all kinds of bad things will happen. Mr. Feith told the Russians: We do not have to have a treaty with you. We do not have a treaty with other nations that have nuclear weapons. If it is not a good treaty, we are not going to agree to it.

Eventually the Russians agreed. He said the very same insistences, the positions they asserted at that time against the Bush administration that they rejected were demands acquiesced in by this administration in this treaty.

So forgive me if I am a bit dubious about how wonderful this treaty is. I asked the State Department about those cables, and we have not heard any information on them. So there are many more things we need to talk about with regard to the treaty and the overall strategic situation we find ourselves in.

Are we making the world safer? I am worried that we are not. I am worried that this approach may not make us safer. I am well aware that some of our best allies are worried now about the constancy of the United States, the commitment of the United States to a defense, even if, God forbid, nuclear defense of our world allies, that we will not follow through, and so they may have to have their own nuclear weapons.

I know there is a good bit more to discuss in this debate. I encourage this body to be deliberative in its consideration of the treaty. I am not happy that it is being shoved at this point in

time. I was so hopeful and expectant that we would be able to give a firm date to start the debate early next year, and we could have a robust debate, not only about the treaty but how it fits into our overall nuclear strategic posture, what are we going to do about missile defense, what are we going to do about updating our stockpile, and what about our triad and delivery systems, what are we going to do about those. Now it is being jammed in here. I understand why. They have got more votes they think now, and the likelihood of it passing is greater now. I think it has a realistic chance of passing next year.

But, more significantly, I think the administration wishes to avoid a full debate about the strategic nuclear policy of the United States. If that is successful, then I think the American people will be the losers, as will the security of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Well, it is difficult to amend a treaty, as the Senator knows, once it has been signed. There are things that can be done. I think, first and foremost, we need to ask ourselves, is this a good thing for the country? Will it advance our interests? I believe we need a pretty big discussion about that and where we stand.

I know Senator Kerry has been supportive of modernization--I believe you have--at least as this treaty has moved forward, if not in the past. And we need to do that. But I am a bit uneasy that the President is basically saying, if you do not pass my treaty, we are not going to modernize, when I think modernization is critical to the security of our country. I also want to know how it fits into our overall strategic policy.

So that is kind of my biggest concern, I say to Senator Kerry. I do not know that the numbers that the treaty takes us to, the reduced numbers themselves are dangerous. Some people say they think it is a bit dangerous, but most experts do not think so. I am not inclined to oppose a treaty on whether it is 1,550 or 1,700 or 1,800. But I think if it is part of a trend to take our numbers down further--perhaps you saw Mr. Hogan's article saying it ought to be 500 or lower. That would make me very concerned and I think would cause serious ramifications internationally. Would you agree? If this treaty would be, say, for 500, it would definitely create some concern and angst around the world?

May I ask, I believe earlier today the Senator made the point:

Make no mistake, we are not going to amend the treaty

itself. We are willing to accept resolutions that don't kill

the treaty.

I think I understand that. But I do assert that, as we both know, amending a treaty is not something that is easily done. So we have to deal with whether we think the treaty is helpful. We can do some things through the amendment process to make it more palatable and acceptable to people who have concerns. I do not dispute that. But I do believe that, fundamentally, this day ought to be about discussing the overall strategic impact of the treaty.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I would like to address two matters concerning the impeachment of Judge Porteous. As a former Federal prosecutor and State attorney general, I have reviewed and drafted a number of indictments. I do not believe that evidence of acts committed before confirmation should be withheld from consideration in the impeachment process or that it is inappropriate to aggregate claims together.

The Constitution does not require that all conduct be committed post Federal appointment nor does it stipulate at all when the conduct must occur. Whether treason or bribery occurs before or after confirmation is not the question, but whether or not it occurred. If this were not so, individuals like Judge Porteous, who are very capable of practicing the art of deception and are confirmed, could not be removed from office.

I believe that all four counts against Judge Porteous were well drafted. The Senate has previously stated that ``the House has substantial discretion in determining how to aggregate related alleged acts of misconduct in framing Articles of Impeachment and has historically frequently chosen to aggregate multiple factual allegations in a single impeachment article . . . Judge Porteous engaged in a number of elaborate schemes. Having prosecuted fraud, conspiracy, and racketeering cases, I understand that the facts in these types of cases can be extensive and can build up over a period of years. What we should look at is whether the events are sufficiently related so as not to produce prejudice. Each of these counts told a complete story of wrongdoing that was coherent and was held together logically.

Finally, let me say that Judge Porteous's behavior should serve as a reminder to the President of the critical importance of vetting his nominees and as a reminder to this body that a thorough confirmation process is imperative. The process should always emphasize character, integrity, mental and emotional health, and high morals.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that CDR Brent Breining, a defense legislative fellow assigned to my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on treaty No. 111-5, the New START Treaty.

Mr. President, I rise today to bid farewell to a trusted member of my staff who will be departing the Senate. Melissa Shute has served as my legislative counsel, handling issues involving energy, natural resources, and public lands. I have been fortunate to have a wonderful tradition of outstanding staffers to handle my energy and environmental issues; however, the problem with good staff is that they often get pulled away.

Melissa is no exception. She came to me in 2008 after serving as lead counsel to one of our former Members whom I highly regard, Senator Pete Dominici, on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. While on the committee, Melissa was a key player on legislation to increase domestic energy production in the United States. Melissa has developed an expertise in energy and environmental issues and the importance they play in our economy. She is an enthusiastic warrior for the principles we share.

Melissa has provided critical counsel to me regarding major issues in nuclear, coal, and renewable fuel research and development. She also took a leading role in helping Alabamians living on the gulf coast during the tragic oil spill. Melissa and my energy team went above and beyond to take the steps necessary to help those impacted by the environmental disaster receive the support and information they need to begin the road of clean-up and recovery.

A graduate of the University of Tulsa's College of Law, Melissa has demonstrated a sound legal mind in analyzing legislative proposals that would impact current moratoria on off-shore drilling. She understands that we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and find new ways to tap the rich energy supplies our country has to offer.

She has been a great partner as we have worked to reduce the huge wealth transfer from the United States to purchase foreign oil, to reduce pollution, to produce energy at the lowest possible prices, such as nuclear power, and to create jobs in America. It has been a good run.

Mr. President, I express my deepest gratitude to Melissa for all of her efforts and leadership, and I wish her well as she moves on to a new chapter in her life.

Mr. President, I rise today to say goodbye to one of the most esteemed members of my staff. Stephen Boyd, an exceptional individual with a deep devotion to the State of Alabama, will be leaving my office to become chief of staff for a new member of the Alabama delegation, Congressman-elect Martha Roby.

Stephen came to my office 7 years ago right out of law school. I was immediately impressed not only by his talent but by his tenacity. No matter how difficult the task given him he would pursue it with vigor, and he would not relent until he arrived at a solution. Stephen sees every obstacle as a challenge to overcome.

In his first post as my legislative assistant for energy issues, he worked on efforts to establish the Coastal Impact Assistance Program. That program became law through the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Stephen also played a significant role in developing the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2006.

Early on, Stephen also recognized the need to pursue alternative energy sources in order to diminish our dependence on foreign oil. Through his efforts he brought considerable attention to switchgrass as a renewable energy resource, ultimately leading to switchgrass' potential being recognized in President Bush's 2006 State of the Union Address.

One of Stephen's most valuable assets is his ability to anticipate problems and to prepare for the unpredictable. Stephen was the point person for our office response when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. But before that disastrous hurricane hit, Stephen had already implemented an office action plan to make sure we could quickly and efficiently respond to an emergency.

In the last 4 years, Stephen has served first as my press secretary, followed by a swift promotion to communications director. He played a key role in overseeing office communications during some of the most difficult and challenging issues our country has faced in a long time-- from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to the recent economic crisis, to the disastrous oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Stephen also made an invaluable contribution in two Supreme Court confirmations, helping deliver a crucial message about preserving the integrity of America's courts--defending them from the corruption of politics and grounding them in the firm bedrock of our Constitution.

Given his myriad accomplishments and his stellar service to this office, it is no surprise that Stephen is highly regarded by his colleagues in the Senate. Allow me to share what others have said:

Don Stewart, communications director for Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, said, ``Stephen has shown the kind of calm leadership that was needed in one of the most active periods I've ever seen in my time here. He doesn't yell and scream, he just gets it done.''

Josh Holmes, staff director for Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell's Republican Communications Center, said, ``Stephen is one of the rare commodities in Washington who prefers achieving results over personal accolades. He's a consummate professional and effective advocate who has been an absolute pleasure to work with.''

Rick Dearborn, my chief of staff, said, ``I am proud to have worked alongside Stephen Boyd. I have always admired his attention to detail and the great clarity of his perspective. He has a commonsense approach I've witnessed him apply to all manner of complex problems to be solved, issues to be decided or given further thought.

So much of what I believe has guided him to excel has been his basic honesty, his strong core integrity and a sincere commitment to serve the people of Alabama on behalf of Senator Sessions through his various roles in our office.

Our loss in the Senate is Martha Roby's gain in the House and the second District of Alabama. He now assumes a key position within our staff delegation, as the Congresswoman's new chief of staff. She could not have made a better choice.''

Matt Miner, staff director for the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, ``Stephen Boyd has been a tremendous asset to the Judiciary Committee during Senator Sessions' tenure as ranking member. Through two Supreme Court confirmations and numerous national security debates, Stephen's calm and thoughtful work as communications director helped focus the national debate and convey the Republican message. He is one of the most talented people with whom I have worked on Capitol Hill, and I wish him all the best in his next endeavor.''

Brian Benczkowski, former staff director for the Senate Judiciary Committee said, ``It was a professional and personal pleasure to work with someone as gifted and hard-working as Stephen Boyd. Stephen has an uncanny ability to analyze any given subject like a top-notch lawyer, while also applying a good dose of Alabama common

sense to the problem, and then communicating the result in clear and unmistakable terms. These skills were an invaluable resource for the Senate Judiciary Committee during my tenure, particularly during the Sotomayor and Kagan nominations. If there is a silver lining in his departure from Senator Sessions' staff, it is that he will continue his public service for the people of Alabama. His keen judgment and excellent personal integrity will be an asset to Congresswoman Roby, and I know he will be missed by his colleagues in the Senate.''

Alan Hanson, chief of staff to Senator Richard Shelby, said, ``It is a credit to Stephen's abilities and work ethic that he has so rapidly advanced in his Capitol Hill career. Having worked with him for 3\1/2\ years and known him much longer, I can personally attest that he is a singularly talented and capable jack-of-all-trades. Senator Sessions' loss is truly Congresswoman Roby's gain, and I look forward to witnessing the great things Stephen will accomplish in his new role in the House of Representatives.''

Sarah Haley, press secretary for Senator Sessions, said, ``Stephen Boyd is a man of scrupulous character, sound ethics, and servant leadership. It has been a privilege to work under him. Stephen will be greatly missed by all of us.''

Stephen Miller, press secretary for the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, ``Stephen Boyd is a brilliant communicator, operating at a truly elite level. And yet he is the furthest thing from an elitist. Thoughtful, genuine, sincere--these are the traits so familiar to those who know him. I am proud to have had the chance to work with Stephen Boyd. But I am prouder still to call him a friend.''

Ryan Patmintra, press secretary for Senator Jon Kyl, said, ``Stephen's background in both policy and communications made him one of the top-notch Senate communicators on either side of the aisle. His ability to go beyond talking points and walk reporters through our arguments served us well. We were lucky to have him on our team. His presence and expertise will be sorely missed in the Senate.''

Cindy Hayden, who served with Stephen Boyd during her tenure as my chief counsel, said, ``Stephen displays unwavering devotion to Senator Sessions, to the people of Alabama, and to his principles. A talented lawyer and a trusted colleague, Stephen possesses a likeability even his opponents find hard to resist. I am confident his future colleagues will enjoy working with him as much as I did.''

I will miss Stephen. He was always thinking down the road, anticipating programs, and protecting me and the Senate from unwise actions. That kind of attention to detail and good judgment is rare and noteworthy.

From the first day he joined my staff, Stephen has been a tremendous asset. He has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues, and has proven himself as a leader. His journey is only beginning, and I wish him all the best in the months and years to come.

Madam President, I ask to be notified after 4 minutes.

Madam President, the military has a very fine program now that allows people legally and illegally in the United States to join the military and put themselves on a pathway to citizenship. The fact is, in this bill, as it is going to work out in reality, 95 percent, probably 98 percent of the people who take advantage of this amnesty that puts them on a guaranteed path to citizenship will do so by claiming they have a high school degree. They can be up to 30 years of age. They claim they have a high school degree and then do 2 years of community college or even correspondence college work. That is where this huge loophole is and that is why we will have 1 to 2 million people who are going to seek protection under this act.

What is this about? The American people understand it. They have tried to tell this Congress, but the Congress and the political leadership refuse to listen. What they are saying is do not continue to reward illegality. Do not continue to provide benefits for people who violated our law, please. The first thing you do is don't reward it. The second thing you want to do is to end the mass illegality that is occurring in our country--600,000 people were arrested last year trying to enter our country illegally at the border--600,000. This is a huge problem.

This administration sued Arizona when it tried to do something about it. They have ended workplace raids that would have identified people who were working illegally and provide Americans an opportunity to have a job. This bill will cost $5 billion according to the CBO. It is not going to pay for itself, and it allows people with two misdemeanors--if you only have two misdemeanors you can apply. Many people, if you know much about the law enforcement system in the country, plead to lesser offenses when they really are guilty of more serious offenses. A lot of these misdemeanors are very serious offenses themselves. They will be given the advantage of this act.

It is not set up for military, it is not set up for valedictorians and salutatorians, it is not set up for people going to Harvard. It is set up for people who have come into the country, can be brought in illegally as a teenager, they go to high school--they have to be accepted. They get a GED or get a high school degree, and they apply and have a safe harbor in our country indefinitely.

I introduced yesterday a chart showing a Google page with a whole long list of places you can order false high school diplomas, false transcripts, false GED certificates. There are no people funded to investigate any of this. People are going to walk in and say: I am 30 years old and I came at age 16. I'm in.

Who is going to go out and investigate that? Nobody is. There is no funding to do it, and there is no plan to do it. It is a major loophole.

But, fundamentally, I would say this Nation will be prepared, as a nation, to wrestle with and try to do the right thing about people who have been here a long time and who came here as a young person. But let me tell you, not until this country brings the lawlessness to an end, that is what the American people have told us unequivocally. They shut down our switchboards with so many phone calls not too long ago when we tried to pass amnesty here. We do not need to do this. Why don't we do the responsible thing?

Finally, let me say this illegality can be ended. It is within our grasp if we have leadership from the top and leadership in the Congress and leadership from the President.

I thank the Chair. I say we have not had that leadership. What happens 3 years from now when we have another group that has come illegally at age 15 or 16 because they have seen what happens to the ones who came before? Are we then going to say they don't get amnesty? No. We will have lost the moral high ground, the right, responsible effort to have a lawful system in America. We are surrendering to it if we vote for this bill.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I think the Senator is using my time.

All right. I was wrong, I am pleased to say.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I wish to share a few thoughts about the legislation that I understand we will be voting on--at least voting on cloture--later this afternoon, and that is the DREAM Act. One of the major themes of the recent election was an idea revolving around an idea set forth in the Declaration of Independence--the idea that is a bedrock principle of our country--and that is the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

Many Americans have believed for some time now that Washington has become disconnected from the people it serves. Indeed, a recent poll found that only one in five Americans believes the government is operating with the consent of the governed.

Now, on the heels of a historic midterm election, the Democratic leadership in this lameduck session is, I believe, further eroding those bonds of trust by refusing to listen and moving an amnesty bill that violates a clear American view that border security should be first. The American people are correct in that. It is not negative, mean-spirited. The American people understand, and I think Congress is coming to understand also, that ending the lawlessness at our borders is the first thing that must be done, and at some point after that we can then wrestle with what to do about people here illegally or else we are surrendering to lawlessness.

So our Democratic leaders have introduced now four versions of the DREAM Act in just the last 2 months--three in the last 2 or 3 days--a shell game that abuses the process. We have not had hearings on it in 7 years. Meanwhile, the DREAM Act has been proposed as a bill for ambitious youth on a track to graduate from high school or college and join the military. But the truth is far different from that talking point.

In reality, the DREAM Act would grant nearly unrestricted amnesty--a guaranteed path to citizenship--to millions of illegal aliens--adults and youth alike. They do not even need a high school diploma. They certainly do not need a college degree. And they do not need to join the military. In fact, the bill's eligibility provisions are so broad that even repeat criminal offenders would fall within its loose requirements and qualify for this masked amnesty.

The public has pleaded with Congress time and again to secure the border, but those pleas have been ignored by those who have been pushing this bill. Why aren't we seeing calls for that? Americans want us first to enforce the laws we have, but the bill will reward and encourage the violation of American laws. Americans want Congress to end the lawlessness, but this bill would have us surrender to it. It is a give-up type of approach.

Consider the DREAM Act's core features. It is not limited to children first. Illegal aliens as old as 30 or 35, depending on the bill, are eligible on the date of enactment, and they remain eligible to apply at any future age, as the registration window does not close. One does not need a high school diploma, a college degree, or military service. A person here illegally can receive indefinite legal status as long as they have a GED--the alternative to a high school diploma. They can receive that in a foreign language, and they can receive permanent legal status and a guaranteed path to citizenship as long as they then complete 2 years of college or trade school, but their status changes upon application after having a GED.

My faithful staff has just discovered and made a copy of this Google page, and it had 273,000 hits. The title of it is ``Fake Diploma,'' and it has places on here that one could obtain a fake diploma, fake degree, fake diplomas. Or how about another one: fake diplomas, fake degrees, fake GEDs, high school diplomas. Buy a GED, high school diploma, college diploma, college transcript, college degrees or high school transcripts at Diploma Company, your online source. It goes on down there: Fake diploma, fake diploma, fast delivery, fake diploma, transcript, birth certificate.

So this is not going to be easy to enforce. I would assure you we have insufficient personnel to go out and run down all these matters.

One version of the DREAM Act offers illegal aliens instate tuition, for which many Americans are not eligible. All four versions that are now pending provide illegal aliens with Federal education benefits, such as work-study programs, Federal student loans, and access to public colleges. These are already funded. We would like to have more money for these loan programs. But it has to be spread out, and the budget is tight. So more illegal aliens would then be rewarded by these programs.

The CBO--the Congressional Budget Office--has said the bill, over time, would add $5 billion to the national debt. But I believe the number is likely to be higher because CBO clearly failed to account for a number of major cost factors with the DREAM Act, including public education costs, chain migration, and fraud. Nor does the CBO take

into account what history has proven--that passing amnesty will incentivize even more illegality and lawlessness at the border.

I wish it weren't so, but experience teaches us that it is. If you are here illegally, and you have a young brother, a nephew, they can get into our country and get into a high school. They can't deny them if they are here illegally. So they can get a degree or GED, and they are put on a guaranteed path to citizenship. At the point that occurs, they can even make application for their family member to be given a priority--the one who was here illegally to begin with, who brought them here. That is the reality under our immigration procedure.

In addition, the CBO assumes a large portion of these individuals will obtain jobs, but there is no job surplus today. Indeed, there is a surplus of labor that can't find employment. So this score does not count unemployed American citizens who can't get jobs because of additional competition. Estimates conservatively say between 1.3 and 2.1 million illegal aliens will be immediately eligible for the DREAM Act's amnesty. But that number will grow significantly, as the bill has no cap or sunset. Moreover, those who do obtain legal status can do the same for their relatives, as I indicated.

Many with criminal records will also be eligible for the DREAM Act's amnesty. They simply must have less than three misdemeanor violations-- less than three. Those potentially eligible would include drunk drivers, gang members, even those who have committed certain sexual offenses. Many of those are misdemeanors. And the most recent version of the bill also gives the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to wave ineligibility for even the most severe criminal offenders and those who pose even a threat to national security.

Mr. President, I was a Federal prosecutor and State attorney general. I know for a fact that every day, for a host of reasons--maybe a witness didn't show up, maybe the caseload is overwhelming--prosecutors allow people to plead to misdemeanors when the offense they have actually committed is a felony. So allowing a person to have three misdemeanors is a serious loophole and does not suggest that the criminal activity they have been participating in is insignificant or nonconsequential.

Surprisingly, those who commit document fraud or who lie to immigration authorities are eligible for the amnesty as well. This is particularly troubling as it contains a potential loophole for high- risk individuals to be placed on a pathway to citizenship. One of the warning signs missed prior to 9/11 was the fraudulent visa applications submitted by the 9/11 hijackers.

The DREAM Act even contains a safe harbor provision that would prevent many applicants from being removed as long as their application is pending, even if they have a serious criminal record. This provision would dramatically hinder our Federal authorities and will undoubtedly unleash a torrent of costly litigation.

One of the things that has been happening too much is what we call catch-and-release. People are apprehended and placed in jail and then they are released--illegal aliens--and told to report back to the court for a final disposition of their case. Not surprisingly, over 90 percent--I think 94 percent--don't show up. So when we allow these processes to be delayed significantly, it reduces the ability of the law enforcement officials to be able to process cases, and it allows many to be released on bail, whereupon they abscond and do not return.

Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?

Twelve seconds. I thank the Chair.

So, Mr. President, this country needs to end the lawlessness, and after that is done--and it can be done shortly--the American people want us to wrestle with how to handle people who have entered our country illegally. The reverse is not true.

They do not want us providing amnesty before the border is secure.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Was there 10 minutes to both sides?

I ask unanimous consent to have 3 additional minutes before we vote.

Just briefly, I would say to my distinguished colleague, Senator Durbin, who I know cares deeply about this issue, I think there is not an injustice today. The law is if you are born here, even from illegal parents, you are a citizen. But if you come into the country or are brought into the country, you are here illegally. That is what the law is. It is not an injustice to enforce the law.

No. 2, I would note that millions of people apply and wait for citizenship, but these individuals who came illegally--maybe at age 14, 15, 16--apply and get to the head of the line over people who have waited for a long time. I do not know that that is justice.

The military already allows people who are not citizens and people who are illegally in the country to join the military and they are given citizenship.

Lots of them achieve citizenship that way. This bill is not necessary to do that. For 10 years, the cost is scored by CBO. It is $5 billion. There is a cost. In addition, for Pell grants--these are grants, not loans students get to go to college--these individuals would be eligible for those as soon as they get in college, after even a GED instead of a high school diploma.

This idea that we are already doing enough at the border and we are doing everything that is possible, I would note this administration has not completed the fence Congress authorized. We are not deporting people effectively. They have sued the State of Arizona that tried to help the Federal Government enforce the law. They have refused to make the E-Verify Program permanent. No workplace raids are being conducted. They were stopped soon after this administration took office.

So I would say, for a host of reasons, we are not doing what can be done and should be done to bring the lawlessness to an end, and to therefore put us in a position to wrestle, as a nation, with how to deal with people who violated the law and came illegally.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak

for up to 25 minutes in morning business.

Mr. President, I understand it is likely the majority leader will seek to bring up the DREAM Act in a day or two. This is a very bad piece of legislation, and it is being presented at a time when we have massive illegality at our borders.

One of the fundamental things that separates America from the other nations of the world is our commitment to the rule of law. We enforce our contracts and our statutes. We punish corruption. One of the great advantages this Nation has over others is the degree to which there is integrity in our process here. We protect the rights and privileges of citizenship. We know one of our most unique and valuable characteristics is our legal system.

Law is a necessary condition for a free society. Freedom cannot flourish in chaos. Prosperity cannot arise in an uncertain environment. Yet we have allowed our borders to descend into chaos and lawlessness. For decades, we have failed to uphold the rule of law. We have failed to protect the integrity of citizenship in America and the law.

Even now, in a post-9/11 world, we still lack control over who comes into our country. Every day, guns, drugs, unknown people, unlawfully pour across our broken border.

The consequences of the government's failure are felt keenly by those living in our border States. Ranchers living on U.S. soil must confront the chaos as a reality of daily life. They are denied the peaceable possession of their private property. Phoenix, the capital of Arizona, is now known as one of the kidnapping capitals of the world.

Yet it does not have to be this way. With enough will and determined execution of a carefully developed plan, executed by a President and supported by a Congress that has as its serious goal the elimination of this illegality, it will be successful and can be successful in just a few years.

It is not impossible. That is what the public wants and this is what our political leaders have obstinately refused to do. Americans are willing--and I am certainly willing--to consider some sort of status for those who have peacefully lived and worked in our country for some extended period of time, but only after we have secured the border. As long as you continue to provide amnesty for people who come into our country and stay here for a period of time, you incentivize further illegality.

Well, this is because passage of amnesty bills, such as the DREAM Act, is an immediate reward for the illegal entry, with no serious plan to stop the illegal flow. Indeed, the legislation incentivizes the flow or the entry of people into our country illegally.

What does this type of legislation say to the rest of the world and to anyone thinking about coming illegally? It says if you can get in the United States and hang on for a number of years, sooner or later we are going to reward you by forgiving your illegal behavior and putting you on a path to citizenship. That is not the message we need to send.

The public will not allow us to repeat the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty. We have discussed that so many times. They will not fall for the ruse that we can have amnesty first and security later. They understand that if we do not secure the border first, we may never secure it at all. We certainly have not done so as of this date.

Despite this--and despite historic losses in the recent election--the Democratic leaders of this Congress are now pushing a reckless proposal for mass amnesty known as the DREAM Act.

At a time when our Nation is struggling with high unemployment and runaway government spending, the bill would authorize millions of illegal workers and impose an even greater burden on the taxpayers. Making matters worse, those eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty include illegal aliens with criminal records. And all of this is being rushed through a lameduck Congress with no committee review.

The Democratic leaders have even introduced four versions of the same bill in just over 2 months--3 in the last 13 days. It has been a shell game that abuses the legislative process. Is it any wonder that the American people have lost faith in this institution?

Americans want us to enforce the laws, but we are considering a bill that would reward and encourage their violation. Americans want Congress to end the lawlessness, but this bill would surrender to it.

Consider a few of the DREAM Act's most troubling provisions:

First, the DREAM Act is not limited to children. Illegal aliens as old as 30 or 35 are eligible on the date of the enactment of the bill. And they remain eligible to apply at any future age, as the registration window does not close. You do not need a high school diploma, a college degree, or military service in order to receive amnesty under the DREAM Act as proposed.

Illegal aliens can receive indefinite legal status as long as they have a GED, the alternative to a high school diploma. They can receive permanent legal status and a guaranteed path to citizenship as long as they complete just 2 years of college or trade school.

One version of the DREAM Act offers illegal aliens in-State tuition for which many Americans are not eligible. All four versions provide illegal aliens with Federal education benefits, such as work-study programs, Federal student loans, and access to public colleges that are already short on spaces and resources.

The Congressional Budget Office is the entity that gives us technical data about legislation. It is a pretty objective group. It is hired by the Democratic leader, the Democratic majority, but I think most of the time they try to do the right thing. They say the bill would add $5 billion to the deficit. But that number really, I have to say, is low. The CBO clearly failed to account for a number of major cost factors associated with implementation of the DREAM Act. Of course, they haven't had much time to make this analysis since the most recent version was introduced just 5 days ago. The CBO fails to account for unemployment, public education cost, chain migration, and fraud. Furthermore, it did not take into account what history has proven: passing amnesty will incentivize even more illegality and lawlessness at the border.

In addition, the CBO assumes a large portion of these individuals will obtain jobs, but there is no surplus of job opportunities in American today. Unemployment just went up from 9.6 to 9.8--almost 10 percent. It has remained high for an exceedingly long period of time. The economists are telling us we are going to have to look forward to much higher unemployment than we have been used to in the past. Well, nobody is scoring the fact that many American job seekers will not get a job if large numbers--a million or more--of illegal aliens are converted to legal status and start competing for jobs, and perhaps denying them that job, which may have good benefits and good pay.

Conservative estimates say that between 1.3 and 2.1 million illegal aliens will be immediately eligible for this DREAM Act amnesty, but that number will grow significantly as the bill has no cap or sunset to it. Moreover, those who obtain legal status can then petitions for their relatives. Under the DREAM Act, illegal aliens are put on a path to citizenship--first they receive conditional status, then legal permanent resident status, and finally citizenship. After they are naturalized, they can then, through the chain migration process, apply to bring in their relatives. Some of the people they might apply to bring in are likely to be the persons who brought them here illegally. As a result, the number of green cards granted could easily triple what is expected.

Many with criminal records will also be eligible for the DREAM Act's amnesty. They simply must have less than three misdemeanor convictions--under the Act, Congress is arbitrarily determining that two misdemeanors is OK while three is not so good. Those potentially eligible would include drunk drivers, gang members, and even those who have committed certain sexual offenses.

The most recent version of the bill also gives the Secretary of Homeland Security broad authority to waive ineligibility for even the most severe criminal offenders and those who pose a threat to our national security. Many such offenses include indecent exposure, DUI, smaller thefts, and drug

charges. Some of them are charged as felonies and very routinely reduced to misdemeanors. Two misdemeanor drug convictions won't bar you from being protected under this act and being able to have a guaranteed path to citizenship.

Those who commit document fraud or who lie to immigration authorities will be eligible for the bill's amnesty as well. This is particularly troubling as it contains a potential loophole for high-risk individuals placed on the pathway to citizenship. One of the warning signs we missed prior to 9/11 was the fraudulent visa applications submitted by the 9/11 hijackers. This bill would likely make it more difficult to combat immigration fraud from the dangerous regions of the Middle East where we have had an unfortunate history of abuse.

This DREAM Act even contains a safe harbor provision--very significant--that would prevent many applicants from being removed as long as their application is pending. If they have a serious criminal record, they would normally be subjected to deportation. This provision could dramatically hinder Federal authorities and will undoubtedly unleash a torrent of costly litigation that will suck up untold hours of our law enforcement personnel's time and ability and resources that ought to be focused on the border.

If somebody who has been apprehended for illegally being in the country or committing a serious crime can come into court and assert they have filed a petition under the DREAM Act, they can not be deported. This is really a problem because if a facility does not have enough bed space, what are we supposed to do? Are we now going to have investigators drop what they are doing and go out and try to prove that someone was here before the age of 16? Did they really have a GED or is that a forged document? How many criminal convictions do they have? This all has to be investigated now. It could takes weeks or even months. So what happens? Are we going to keep those individuals in jail instead of deporting them? How much cost is involved in that? All of that is not counted in this process.

I just want to say that my experience in law enforcement is that there are not enough people to do those investigations and we are going to have millions of applications. How do we prove somebody came here at age 15 instead of age 18? How do we prove they have been here 5 years? How do we prove they came here 5 years ago and came at age 17 or 15 or 14? Who is going to investigate that and dispute it, if they submit a statement and say they have been here for 5 years? We have to take the time now to investigate all of that?

This is not what we need to be doing right now. We have more serious challenges to end the illegal flow. And for people who have been here a long time and who have otherwise been good citizens and have worked hard, we can figure out some way to deal with their future. But I do not believe this is the right step. It is not the right step.

In short, I believe the bill will be a disaster. Yet our Democratic leadership remains committed in their push for this amnesty provision. They are again defying the public will and sending the world a message that our Nation is not serious about the integrity of our borders and our laws.

American citizenship is the envy of the world, but central to our Nation's greatness is our respect for the rule of law. None of us that I am aware of in this Senate is proposing to in any significant way reduce the number of people who come to our country lawfully. Indeed, there are many provisions to increase the number who come lawfully. But the American people are rightly saying: We have to do something about the illegality. By eroding the respect for law through reckless and irresponsible amnesty provisions, we would do a disservice not only to the 300 million Americans who call this Nation their home but to all those future citizens who are applying and waiting in line to enter our country lawfully.

I feel strongly about this. Hopefully, this matter will not be proceeded with. We need to wrestle with how to bring our immigration system under control. We can do that. I have studied it for some time. I truly believe it can be done.

Senator McCain from Arizona, who has been to the border a great deal, has said that within a year or two we can end this massive illegality. I have been saying that for a number of years. I truly believe it. But we need to focus on that, not focus on rewards for those who have entered illegally. That is why this legislation should not pass.

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

Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I will object--I would first thank my colleague, Senator Leahy, for the courtesy as he has moved forward with this. He is a relentless chairman pushing for these nominees. I respect his responsibility and his belief that this nominee needs to move forward, and, frankly, it is about time--we need to fish or cut bait on it. I do not think an indefinite delay is good for the country.

This nomination does have controversy. Most of the nominations the President has submitted did clear unanimously in our committee, but this nomination resulted in all the Republicans on the committee voting against it. But I now understand that our two leaders, Senators Reid and McConnell, are working at this moment to try to figure which nominees should move before we recess--and hopefully before too many days--and perhaps this nominee will be in that group. But until those talks are complete, I would object.

I object.

Did you say recess in 2 minutes?

I would ask that the unanimous-consent request allow me to have 5 minutes when the Senator finishes.

Madam President, the President and the Attorney General need a Deputy Attorney General who can function, who has the confidence of the Congress and the American people and will do an excellent, first-rate job.

There are questions about this nominee. Every nominee who has been nominated for the Deputy Attorney General or other positions in the Department of Justice by President Bush was not rubber stamped within a day or two. Tim Flanigan, a highly competent nominee, was opposed by Democratic lawmakers aggressively after 9/11. The President withdrew him from consideration and then nominated someone who was promptly confirmed. He did not try to ram it down our throats.

Frankly, we have a problem of confidence in the Department of Justice. The Attorney General himself, perhaps following the lead of the President, has indicated on a number of different occasions a lack of commitment to vigorous action to prosecute terrorists who have attacked the country, and he has taken other steps.

I would have liked to have seen a Deputy Attorney General nominee who was not in that mold but who was more of a career prosecutor who would have helped bring some balance and input from a more traditional view of the role of the Attorney General as someone who prosecutes criminals, protects the United States, defends law-abiding Americans from terrorists and criminals who attack them. That was the approach I took when I was attorney general. I hired people who were proven prosecutors. But Mr. Cole, for example, right after 9/11, indicated his belief that these attacks were not acts of war but instead were criminal acts; he wrote this in an article:

For all of the rhetoric about war, the September 11th

attacks were criminal acts of terrorism against the civilian

population.

I do not agree with that. The American people do not agree with that. Why does the President want to appoint somebody who thinks 9/11 was a criminal act and not an act of war? I think it is a big deal, so that is one of the reasons we have raised it. Is he going to bring some balance to Attorney General Holder or are they going to move even further left in their approach to these issues?

I would also note he was given a highly paid position as an independent monitor of AIG. This is the big insurance company whose credit default swaps and insurance dealings really triggered this entire collapse of the economic system. He was in the company at the time as a government monitor, and he did not blow the whistle on what was going on throughout this period of time.

It is argued that he wasn't precisely there to monitor. Sue Reisinger of Corporate Counsel wrote this about his handling of that matter:

It is as though Cole were spackling cracks in the

compliance walls and never noticed that AIG's financial

foundation was crumbling beneath his feet.

One more point.

Beatrice Edwards of the Government Accountability Project criticized Cole for failing to ``detect an atmosphere of . . . laissez-faire compliance of the company.'' So he has been criticized for a big, important role he had.

Those were just some of the concerns held in committee. And I wish the President had nominated somebody like Larry Thompson, who was Department Attorney General under President Bush, and whom everybody respected and would have been confirmed like a knife through hot butter.

Madam President, I thank the chairman of our committee. He is doing what I would do if I were in his place, in saying: Let's give this nominee an up-or-down vote and let's have a debate on it. Our leaders are working on that, and perhaps that can be accomplished. But it must be noted that this is a nominee who has some controversy.

I yield the floor.

I will be brief, but I do appreciate so much the comments of the Senator from Tennessee. He is one of our most valuable Members. He is an honest person. He can summarize complex matters in ways even I can understand. I think he stated honestly and fairly where we are today.

Not only did President Obama's own Office of Management and Budget Director, Peter Orszag, say we ought to keep the rates where they are, not go up on the upper income people at this time of economic stress and job loss, not raise taxes on them--although my colleague is saying that somehow if we pass this legislation it would be a bonus. For 10 years these rates have been at this level. We are talking about raising the rates if we don't take action.

I am going to recall that Senator Alexander serves on the Budget Committee, as does Senator McCaskill. We worked hard on some important legislation together that I think will be helpful in containing spending.

We recently had a Budget Committee hearing a few months ago. I think Senators Alexander and McCaskill were there. We had three premier, exceedingly well-known economists testify, two called by the majority and one called by the Republican minority. That is sort of traditional. We had Mr. Zandi from Moody's, Allen Blinder of Princeton, and John Taylor of the Taylor rule. The violation of his rule by Mr. Bernanke was a significant factor in the bubble in housing. But Mr. Taylor was a Republican witness. All three said: Don't raise taxes now in this economy.

It is offensive to me a bit to have my colleagues stand up and in a demagogic way say: You are trying to give a tax benefit, a bonus to millionaires. I don't believe that is accurate. These three premier economists, two of them called by the Democratic majority, said: Don't raise taxes.

Do you think these economists were saying this because they want to help millionaires, or do you think they were making that opinion because they believe it would be best for the economy and help more Americans who are out of work get work?

And Mr. Orszag was a former Congressional Budget Office head and also was chosen by President Obama when he first came to office for that significant, premier center of the government, the Office of Management and Budget, a student of these issues, far more liberal in ways than I would be in a lot of matters. But he has indicated he did not think we should raise taxes now that he has left the administration.

I thank the Senator for sharing those thoughts. I would say it is concerning that this gets boiled down to some sort of an idea that we are just trying to protect the rich.

What we are trying to do is to do something to help this economy to allow the private sector to create jobs and reduce this unemployment, which

is maddeningly remaining at very high, unacceptable levels. Everybody, all the economists and others, tells us the economy will not come back until we have a lower unemployment rate. Raising taxes is not the way to lower unemployment, and we are talking about a significant increase to 39.6 percent on upper income taxpayers.

These are small businesspeople. I met one gentleman who has 10 fast food restaurants and 200 employees. He told me with the health care bill and the stress he is seeing, he expects to be laying off 70 of those employees. We do not need to even be laying off 7. We need to be able to hire more, if we can, so we can have more people working.

Then we have, in addition, a 2.9-percent increase on upper income people, a 2.9-percent additional tax for Medicare. That makes the total tax rate about 42.8 percent or 42.6 percent. Plus, my State of Alabama has a 5-percent income tax. That makes it 47 percent. Some have 10 percent income tax. Then we pay sales taxes. Then we pay property taxes, and other taxes, gasoline taxes and those things. So the idea that we can just continue to ratchet up taxes without consequence to the economy is not accurate.

I do remember and would say one more thing. I talked to a businessman at an airport of an international company. He is the CEO for North America. He told me they had sought to obtain an environmental chemical process in the United States at their plant, and he thought he had won it. The people in Europe, who evaluate the proposals--it would have added 200 jobs in my State of Alabama--they said: Sorry, you have lost because you did not count taxes. And tax rates are higher in the United States than for the competing company. They had plants all over the world. This other plant, in another country that had lower taxes, was going to get it. We lost 200 jobs in the United States as a direct result of higher taxes.

So I just want to repeat, it is an absolute myth that we can just raise taxes on productive enterprises and small businesspeople who do a subchapter S and take their money directly rather than through corporate taxes; that we can raise those taxes and it will not have a job impact. It will have a job impact. That is why all three of the economists who testified before the Budget Committee--two of them Democrats--said: Don't raise taxes now. That is why Mr. Orszag said: Don't raise taxes now.

I see my colleague seeking the floor, and I am pleased to yield.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I would say as to the question raised by my esteemed colleague, I respect his economic judgment, but I respect the economic judgment more of Mr. Zandi of Moody's, Mr. Blinder of Princeton, and Mr. Taylor of the Taylor rule. They all have said without exception: Do not raise taxes in this economy, and those persons who might be making higher incomes most likely are the people who have the most employees and could be affected. They could pay for that by reducing employees. I would also cite him Mr. Peter Orszag, President Obama's own former budget director. Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, I am honored to bring to the attention of the Senate the work of a remarkable American and constituent of mine, Mr. Ron Hayes, of Fairhope, AL.

As blessed as we are to be living in America, we would do well to remember that our society continues to be enhanced through the noble efforts of those who tirelessly and passionately pursue a better quality of life for us all. These often unsung heroes seek only the reward of knowing they have transformed our laws and our land for the better.

Today I wish to honor one such individual who has spent nearly two decades advocating for strengthened workplace safety regulations and timely communication between the government and accident victims and their families. His efforts have made a difference.

Ron Hayes began his journey to improve workplace safety in 1993 when he lost his beloved 19-year-old son, Patrick, to a grain silo accident in Florida. Facing tremendous emotional pain, Ron and his wife Dot sought details of their son's death as well as survivor's benefits from local, State and Federal agencies, only to be met with delays and few answers. After 2 years of navigating the bureaucracy, they resolved to learn everything they could about workplace safety standards and sought ways to improve both job safety rules and enforcement.

Ron Hayes' dedication resulted in the revision of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's, OSHA, grain handling standards. But this was only the beginning. Ron and his wife founded the Families In Grief Hold Together ``FIGHT'' Project, a nonprofit group devoted to assisting families and workers cope with the consequences of workplace accidents and deaths.

Some 10,000 people lose their lives while working each year. Ron Hayes worked with OSHA to create a policy which the agency often uses in communicating with family members after a workplace accident.

Since its founding, the FIGHT Project has reached out to nearly 800 families, providing valuable help in the grieving process, negotiating the red tape and ultimately in healing.

Ron Hayes could have stopped there, but his dedication to improving worker safety has motivated him to speak to almost 50,000 workers and taken him to some of the largest companies in the world. He has testified before Congress on numerous occasions and has served as a special adviser to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

In the process, Ron Hayes has received many awards for humanitarian efforts.

I commend Ron Hayes' selfless dedication to worker safety while providing comfort and valuable counsel to families.

In our society it is possible for one person, or in this case a husband and wife, to make a difference that will positively impact the lives of millions. Ron Hayes has shown us that a lone voice for good cannot only be heard but it can change society for the better.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to honor an exceptional program in Alabama.

For many young men and women, their experiences during World War II were a profound time in their lives. This Nation owes a debt of gratitude for the sacrifices of those Americans who left their families and lives behind to go ``fight the good fight''.

The Honor Flight Network was established to honor the remaining WWII veterans and provide them a trip to the WWII Memorial in Washington, DC which was built in their honor.

The Honor Flight Tennessee Valley program, which also serves northern Alabama, began in the summer of 2006 and flew 14 WWII veterans on their first flight on April 4, 2007. Their final mission was on September 11th, 2010. In this time, Honor Flight Tennessee Valley has flown over 1,300 WWII veterans to Washington, DC. This could not have been accomplished without the leadership and outstanding efforts of the president and founder of Honor Flight Tennessee Valley, Joe Fitzgerald. His organizational skills and

ability to put a plan together were essential to the overall success of the program. Joe put a special emphasis on honoring the veterans who died before they were able to make the trip to DC.

I am thankful that these revered veterans were able to come to our Nation's Capital to be recognized and remembered for their individual sacrifices. Among the most important of the historic sites they visited was the new World War II Memorial, which honors the 16 million veterans who served in the Armed Forces of the United States, the more than 400,000 of our finest Americans who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation, and all who supported the war effort from home.

I have met many Honor Flight groups from all over Alabama at the WWII Memorial. Without exception, they are men and women of character and positive spirit who love their country and thoroughly enjoy the visit. They also have not asked for recognition but are humbled and thankful for this honor. Visiting these veterans is one of the most enjoyable things I get to do as a Senator.

On behalf of my Senate colleagues and the State of Alabama, I thank these veterans for their service to the United States of America and am proud of the work Honor Flight Tennessee Valley and the Honor Flight Network have done for our WWII Veterans.

If the Senator wants just 1 minute, I would----

I would be pleased to yield.

Mr. President, the World Economic Forum recently published its global competitiveness survey. It shows that the competitiveness of the United States has declined from first place in the world to fourth place since President Obama took office in January.

What is the main reason for this decline? Too much debt and too much spending. There are other reasons, but that is the primary one they cited. I would suggest that the proposals to drive up the cost of energy by regulation and cap and tax--supposedly to create green jobs-- are another form of anticompetitiveness that hurts our productivity as a nation. A study of Spain, which has some of the most powerful alternative energy proposals and has taken some of the most dramatic action, has shown that even though there are green jobs created, the overall rise in the cost of energy in Spain has cost that nation more jobs than were created by the green activities.

According to the Washington Post, a senior economist at the World Economic Forum said:

It was government debt and the country's overall economic

outlook that pushed the United States down.

The article goes on to note:

Government debt affects a country's competitiveness by

limiting its ability to respond to crises or to make

infrastructure and other investments that could boost future

productivity. It may also lead to higher interest rates.

I would note also that the EU has a corporate tax rate of 19 percent, whereas the United States has a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, and that costs jobs in America. I talked to a CEO recently who said that 200 Alabama jobs were lost because of the higher corporate tax rate in the United States. We cannot sustain that.

How high is our debt today? It is $13.6 trillion or $44,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, and it is 93 percent of our gross domestic product, which is significant because a famous study produced earlier this year by economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart demonstrated that economic growth slows substantially--it reduces GDP growth by 1 percent--when debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP. We are already over that. And when our economy is only growing at 1.6 percent--as it was in the second quarter--an extra 1 percent is a lot when you are talking about growth. They talk about a new normal where we may be showing only 1, 2, 3 percent growth for years to come. So if you lose a percent based on debt, that is very damaging to the American economy. Well, do we have a plan to reduce it? Have we taken any steps? Actually, the President's budget makes the problem worse. It shows that the gross debt by 2019 would go to $23 trillion--106 percent of GDP.

Look at this chart on interest payments. It is so stunning that I think every American needs to examine it. It reflects the analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, our professional budget office that serves us, the leadership of which is hired by the Democratic majority. They are good people, and this is what they have calculated. In 2009, the interest we paid on all the debt in this country was $187 billion. By 2020, they calculate that the 1 year's interest payment would be $916 billion--almost $1 trillion. This is a stunning figure. Last year, the baseline budget--or at least 2 years ago--on highways was about $40 billion. I think the spending on education totally is about $100 billion.

So we are talking about $900 billion in interest now because the public debt will triple from last year to 2019 under the budget submitted by the President. You would think we would be talking about that in Congress and we would be dealing with a budget and plans to try to bring that under control, would you not? Surprisingly, we haven't had any real discussion about the budget this year. Indeed, we haven't debated the budget on the floor of the Senate at all. This will be the first year since the modern budget process was created in 1974 that Congress has not even considered a budget. It was not brought up. It has not even been produced here.

I would be pleased. I see my colleague from Mississippi is here.

That is correct.

That is correct, and I thank my colleague for mentioning that.

Senator Claire McCaskill, my Democratic colleague from Missouri, and I have offered legislation that would essentially take the budget that was submitted last year, which had a 5-year number. The first-year numbers were not very good.

I will show some of the spending increases last year in our baseline accounts. I know my colleagues will find this hard to believe because it is so stunning, but the State Department and Foreign Operations got a 32-percent increase in baseline spending last year. EPA got a 35- percent increase. Commerce, Science, Justice, that is, the Commerce Department and the Justice Department, received 12.3 percent. The Treasury-HUD number was 23 percent; Agriculture, 8; and Defense, 4.1.

So we have been spending rapidly, but the budget called for less spending this year and next year and the next year. It was a 5-year budget. So we asked our colleagues: Let's, on a bipartisan basis, pass legislation very similar to what was passed in the 1990s. That really was a critical act in achieving a balanced budget in the late 1990s, and this action would say that if you went above that spending level, which is basically projected to be 1 percent or so, it would take a two-thirds vote of the Congress. This would help us maintain spending, wouldn't my colleague agree, if we had a two-thirds vote?

Well, I think that is important to note, and I would further note that every single Republican supported the McCaskill- Sessions amendment, but also 18 Democrats supported that. I believe that if we had the leadership just say yes instead of no, it would pass easily. It would be a healthy thing because it would send a message to the financial markets worldwide that we at least have some fiscal discipline, and it would be very

unlikely that spending would go above this level if we had a two-thirds supermajority point of order to object to spending over that level.

I would note that the amendment is supported by a number of bipartisan groups, including the Concord Coalition, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the National Taxpayers Union, the Heritage Foundation, former Congressional Budget Office and OMB Director Alice Rivlin--she served under President Clinton--and former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin. So this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that would bring us to a point that, I believe, we can say to the world that we are going to stand by the numbers the President gave us last year-- not Republican numbers but the President's numbers.

Remember, the baseline budget increases are already there. So I think what we are really going to have to do--when we really get a budget and get some new leadership and get committed after this election, when we get a spanking by the American people--is to get budget numbers based on the 2008 spending levels. It will not bankrupt us. The country is not going to sink into the ocean. If we went back to the 2008 levels, the 2007 levels, and then had some modest increases based on inflation rates, we would see an even larger improvement in our financial situation and be more competitive.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.