Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I call up the amendment that is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, Senator McCaskill and I are again offering this amendment that would place a cap on discretionary spending in which we participate in every day but that tends to violate the budget.

Our budget is a critically important component of our financial management. I have been a member of the Budget Committee for a number of years, and it is very frustrating to see how it has gotten around the budget. The legislation that is before us is just another example of violating the budget in ways that are not responsible. For example, the unemployment compensation and the payments to physicians are not emergencies. They are just not. Any responsible household, any responsible city, county, or State government knows that. When those leaders deal with financial crises, they have to figure out how to handle them.

What we are doing with this legislation before us is borrowing money to pay a fundamental obligation of the United States of America, which is to pay doctors an adequate wage for doing Medicare work. They are already paid less for Medicare than private insurance pays them for doing the very same procedures, but we have another shortfall here. If Congress does not pass legislation, physicians will take a 21-percent cut in the amount of money they are paid. That cannot work because our physicians are already, in

many cases, losing money on Medicare treatment of our seniors. They cannot take a 21-percent cut. They will quit doing the work. This is not a matter of debate. It will collapse the Medicare system. We need to do this, but that is the kind of expenditure that is fundamental. It is part of the obligation we have had for many years to pay physicians to do Medicare work. They do not do it for nothing. It ought not to be paid for by borrowing the money on top of all the debt we are now running up in this country.

Our national debt just hit $13 trillion. We will, in 5 years--now 4-- double the national debt, and in 10 years we will triple the national debt. Why? Because we are taking items that are baseline requirements of this government and miraculously converting them to emergencies and then breaking the budget. If anybody objects, such as Senator Bunning did on behalf of his 40-some-odd grandchildren, he is attacked as being against physicians or against the unemployed. Senator Coburn has raised these issues. I support both of them. They are both right.

If the American people understood how irresponsibly we are managing their money, they would be even more upset with us than they already are. The American people are right to be upset with us. We are converting fundamental governmental obligations to emergency spending. Why? Because we do not have to pay for it; we can just borrow it. That is not right.

Senator McCaskill, my Democratic colleague, is concerned about these issues. We have worked together to offer this amendment that would make it harder to violate the budget caps, to make it more difficult and to help us to be more responsible in our spending. Quite a number of my Democratic colleagues joined with us in this amendment and voted for it. Fifty-nine Senators voted for it on one of our previous votes. We were one short of what is necessary to make it law--just one vote short.

We are offering this amendment again. We have taken quite a number of steps to make this legislation palatable and to respond to concerns that some have raised, such as, would it impact the military? No. Would it impact legitimate emergency spending? No.

We have done some things that some may believe weaken the amendment a bit, but it still adds some real strength to it and real value. This kind of budget cap legislation is what allowed us to balance the budget in the late 1990s. I know President Clinton has touted that he balanced the budget. If I recall, Congress--which appropriates every dollar that is spent--shut the government down at one point to try to contain President Clinton's proposed spending, and succeeded in doing so. That eventually led to a balanced budget. The legislation that was in effect at that time, which was very similar to this proposal, expired, and this is one reason spending has surged.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to offer this amendment. We will talk on it again later. I hope that we can enact these provisions into law and that we will get that one extra vote necessary to make a real bipartisan statement. We had bipartisan support for this amendment last time, and it would make a real bipartisan statement to the whole financial world that we are beginning to take seriously our responsibility to reduce this surging deficit. Only then will we begin to see the kind of stability in our economic markets that we must have.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to tell you about a true leader in Alabama sports, Chet Moeller of Montgomery, AL, who was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame on May 27, 2010.

Mr. Moeller first gained national recognition for his gridiron accomplishments at the Naval Academy in 1975, where he was elected unanimously as the First Team All-America Eastern College Athletic Conference All-Conference Player of the Year. He continued on to become a two-time ECAC selection and a Naval Academy Athletic Association Sword recipient. In 3 seasons with the Midshipmen, Mr. Moeller averaged 92 tackles per season. He also served as cocaptain of the 1975 team, which won more games than any Midshipmen squad since the 1963 team that played for the national championship. He proved to be a leader in the classroom as well as he was a Second Team Academic All-American.

Mr. Moeller's induction is no small feat. He was selected by more than

12,000 National Football Foundation members and current members of the College Football Hall of Fame. The votes were submitted to the National Football Federation's Honors Court, which deliberated and selected a class from among the 4.72 million Americans who have played college football. To date, only 866 players have earned this prestigious honor.

The discipline and dedication Mr. Moeller developed on the field were applied as he faithfully served his country as a first lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps. He has also served his community as a board member for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and as a deacon in his church. He is currently serving as a church elder. He and his wife Jenny have resided in Montgomery, AL, for over 30 years. They have two children: Trey, who played football for the University of Virginia, and Rachael, who attended Auburn University.

I commend Mr. Moeller for all of his accomplishments and successes. I share with this body today my pleasure in congratulating Mr. Moeller for this prestigious honor, as he is certainly a worthy recipient.

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

Mr. President, we had a number of votes this week, including one last night in the Armed Services Committee concerning whether to utilize the National Guard to confront the raging illegality that is occurring particularly in the Tucson sector of Arizona. It is a national crisis. The American people fully understand that.

President Obama announced, with some fanfare, that he would send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border. To some, that may have sounded like a good thing. It is certainly not a bad thing. But the truth is, President Bush, under Operation Jumpstart, had 6,000 National Guard at the border at one point, and they made a positive difference. The immigration and Border Patrol people were very complimentary of the National Guard. They repeatedly stated how much it helped them do their job. Since that period, a lot of developments have occurred on the border that have put us in a much better position to be effective in ending this massive illegality than had been the case previously. For example, we have completed close to 350 miles of pedestrian fencing and almost 300 miles of vehicle fencing along the Southern border. Though this only half of the 700 miles of reinforced pedestrian fencing mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, it is a good start. President Bush reluctantly signed that bill into law, and started the process of building fencing and vehicle barriers. Much of it is has been completed now, but we still need to finish what Congress mandated. The fence has multiplied the capabilities of law enforcement officers in many sectors along the border. In addition, the Operation Streamline concept that had begun under the Bush administration in certain sectors of the border is working superbly and is a valuable tool. Other steps have been taken, including increasing the number of Border Patrol agents we authorized several years ago. They are just now coming on line and have been trained. So we have a lot more agents at the border.

The number of people being arrested at the border remains unacceptable, but it is better than it has been. The numbers are down and, in some sectors, down dramatically. For example, in the Yuma sector of Arizona, about 6,900 people were arrested at the border trying to enter the country illegally in 2009. That may sound like a lot--and it is--but it is much less than the over 118,000 apprehended in 2006. In fact, that is a 94 percent decrease in just three years. But in the Tucson sector, where we have old fencing and limited Operation Streamline in effect, over 240,000 were arrested last year--a stunning number. Over a million pounds of marijuana were seized as part of that enforcement effort in the Tucson sector. That is what has caused such a pushback by the people of Arizona.

The President and Washington say: It is our job to end illegality at the border. You can't do anything. You have no jurisdiction. We don't want you to do anything.

That is not correct legally. I have done research on that point. A local law enforcement officer can stop and detain a person whom he identifies as being in the country illegally and turn them over to the Federal Government for the crime of entering the country illegally and for the crime of any other Federal offense they ascertain. This is classical law. It is well recognized. There is no dispute about it.

The people of Arizona rightly have gotten a bellyful. Their hospitals are being overrun. Crime is up. Phoenix is now the second leading kidnapping center in the world, second only to Mexico City in kidnappings, apparently.

It is not acceptable. It is a Federal responsibility. It is the President's responsibility. The President is the chief law enforcement officer. The ICE agents, the Border Patrol agents, Homeland Security, and the Defense Department are under the executive branch, of which the President is the head. I have been through this. We have talked about this. I made a speech before the last election and went into detail about what it would take to end the illegality at the border. It is not hard. It can be done. But we have to have the President committed.

Congress can pass laws. We can send money and force it on the departments. But if they are not willing to utilize it and apply it in an effective way, then we have problems.

Someone came up with the idea of having a virtual fence. They were going to apply that concept. We have now spent over $1.1 billion to create this virtual fence and it didn't work. In fact, Secretary Napolitano has suspended work on the project. But if we build a fence with a good response time from Border Patrol agents, it makes a big difference. Go to Yuma or El Passo to see what that means. The President needs to lead.

What would we expect to happen? I have always believed the normal, natural thing is that the President would come to Congress and say: The borders are wide open. We have had 240,000 people arrested in the Tucson sector. This is unacceptable. I need A, B, C, and D, Congress. Give it to me. We will end this.

He should be telling us what he needs--unless, of course, we have no real desire to end the illegality, which is the case. Why? Because of politics, apparently, and some promise that must have been made in the last campaign that, we are not going to do anything significant at the border until those people in Congress give us amnesty. That is what comprehensive immigration reform is, in the minds of the pro- immigration crowd. They say: We won't fix the border until you agree to give us amnesty.

The American people have seen that before. It doesn't work. We did it in 1986. If we don't end the illegality and we grant amnesty, it sends a message to the world. And what message is that? If someone can get into the United States illegally, if they can burrow in a little bit and hold on, pretty soon they will get amnesty, too. They come in. They get work. Nobody complains if they are working. They hang on and hang on, and they get amnesty.

This eviscerates the American legal system. It makes a mockery of the law. It sends a message to the world: Come on down. Come on into our country in violation of our laws. We will welcome you and eventually make you a citizen. And those of you who want to come lawfully, you have to fill out paperwork, and you have to wait. And if you have a relative to the right degree, you can get in. But if you graduated at the top of your high school class in Honduras and you learned English and you have a year of college, you don't have a relative or whatever, you have to wait in line, unless, of course, you come in and enter illegally.

This is a dysfunctional legal system. We continue to see things develop that indicate to me that the views of the American people, which are sound and reasonable--they just want a lawful system of immigration; they are not against immigration; they are not against immigrants, but they are tired of this massive illegality--are not being listened to by the politicians. The politicians are saying things that are incorrect.

President Obama said he cares about workplace enforcement. What happened right after he took office? Apparently a raid--planned maybe even before he took office--in the State of Washington at a company that had a large number of illegal workers occurred. What happened? The pro-illegal immigration crowd, La Raza, the activists, they were all up in arms. Basically, they said: You promised us you wouldn't do this, Mr. President.

Wait a minute. I thought we had all the candidates saying we need to do better enforcement in the workplace. The jobs magnet does attract people

into the country. But did they have a secret agreement somewhere?

What happened? Secretary Napolitano said she was going to have an investigation and get to the bottom of it. Was she investigating the company that had hired people illegally? No. She was investigating the ICE agents who conducted the raid. Do my colleagues think that didn't send a message throughout the entire United States about this administration's policy of aggressive worksite enforcement--that was the policy of the United States at that point--that we are not going to do it in any effective way? That is indisputable. That is what happened.

This kind of duplicity is going to come home to roost. The American people are not going to continue to put up with it. Members of Congress who voted against the McCain amendment to put 6,000 National Guard on the border to end this violence and illegality that is occurring and threatening the very viability of the State of Arizona are going to have to answer for their votes. This is what democracy is all about.

This all leads me to an article from, I guess, yesterday, a report from Washington. This is what the news article says:

U.S. National Guard troops being sent to the Mexican border

will be used to stem the flow of guns and drugs across the

frontier and not to enforce U.S. immigration laws, the State

Department said Wednesday.

Well, you know: You fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

So I thought the President was saying he was sending 1,200 troops to the border to help end illegality at the border. But, oh, no, they are not doing that. We want to be sure everybody understands, it is only going to be for guns and drugs.

Who do they want to understand this? Do they want the American people to understand it? I do not think so.

The next sentence in the article:

The clarification came after the Mexican government urged

Washington not to use the additional troops to go after

illegal immigrants.

Philip Crowley, the State Department spokesperson, the flack from the State Department, told reporters, ``It's not about immigration.'' He said, ``We have explained the president's announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it.''

Quoting the article further:

Obama's announcement came less than a week after a state

visit to Washington by Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who

asked for greater U.S. backing for a . . . war on drug

cartels.

Well, who are we representing? Mr. Calderon and the Mexican Government or the American people? Is this another flimflam view? I am afraid it is. I can say it appears quite clearly it is, and it is not acceptable. So I think Congress is going to have to act.

They did not want the fence. President Bush did not want the fence. But Congress, after the situation got so bad, appropriated the money and directed it be built, and it has had a great and positive benefit wherever the fence has been built.

We know the history in San Diego when there was massive violence, massive illegality going on at the border. We know that occurred. We built the fence there and violence on both sides of the border went down. Economic growth on both sides of the border went up. Drugs and prostitution and other kinds of illegalities ended, and solid prosperity began to reoccur. You can not operate effectively in an area of violence and illegality and drugs.

So the flow of guns is a Mexican complaint, that too many guns are being bought in the United States and taken to Mexico. I do not dispute that we should be effective in enforcing those laws. But I would suggest, having prosecuted more Federal gun violations than all other Members of this Senate put together, that the National Guard is not the kind of folks we need to prosecute guns going into Mexico. That should be done by ATF and the Border Patrol.

So what does this say about the decision that the President said he is going to deploy 1,200 troops? I say it is just further proof it is not a serious commitment in any way. I do not know what they are going to be doing. I do not see how they can be helpful, and I am not being taken in by what appears to be a ruse. So they are not going to be used for immigration; they are going to be used for drugs and guns, which I think they will not be that particularly effective about. They are talking about guns going from the United States to Mexico. So those are the questions I have.

What Congress needs to do, what the President needs to do, is to make a clear statement that illegality at our border will end. We will do what it takes to end it. It is within our power to do so. We made some progress already. We have about half as many arrests today along the whole border as we did just 6 or 7 years ago. It is because enforcement is much better than it was, and we are going to continue that. We are going to drive down dramatically this illegality, and we are going to effectively improve our immigration legal system so people can have some certainty about that and create a system that serves our national interest in the process.

We are going to tell everybody in the world: Do not come to the border expecting to walk in. You are not going to be successful, and it will stop. It will go down dramatically. It already has in certain sectors. The word gets out. The word was out that the border was wide open and anybody could enter. When the word gets out that the border is closed, people will stop trying. So we will have a massive reduction in the attempts to enter, leaving fewer people for the Border Patrol to have to apprehend, and we will be having a spiral in the right way instead of the wrong way.

So I think we are going to have more votes. I think people who cast a vote in opposition to Senator McCain's amendment, Senator Kyl's amendment, Senator Cornyn's amendment to take the steps that actually work to eliminate illegality at the border need to be answering to their constituents.

I think it is time for Congress to step up. The President is not stepping up. Congress was able to make real progress a few years ago when we built the fence and did some other things that I worked very hard on. I believe we can make progress again. I think the American people have a way, eventually, of having their voices heard, and I think we are going to hear those voices more loudly, with more clarity, in the future.

Somehow, some way, I believe the government is going to come around to affirm the legitimate demands of the American people. They have been right from the beginning. Their instincts, their character, should not be questioned. They simply want an effective immigration system, a lawful immigration system, and they believe it is an embarrassment and a disgrace to our country to have massive illegality going on, as it is today.

I thank the Acting President pro tempore and yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I note that we faced a long discussion about a bill that was just passed out of the Armed Services Committee. I, unfortunately, felt compelled to oppose it, but I appreciate working with the Senator from Illinois as we discussed it.

Amendment No. 4173

Mr. President, I am disappointed that we are going to vote on this emergency supplemental legislation, not having voted on the amendment I offered, along with Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, my Democratic colleague. It received 59 votes a few weeks ago. It is designed to help contain our rapacious tendency to spend, spend, spend. We give the phrase ``a drunken sailor spending'' a bad name the way we are spending in this Congress.

I had hoped we would get another vote on it. I am disappointed Senator

Reid and the leadership on the Democratic side took action to see that a vote would not occur. I called it up very early in the process, and I am disappointed.

The amendment would have made it more difficult to break the budget and allowed more scrutiny for us before we violate it. The emergency supplemental legislation that is before us violates the budget. Every penny of this is spending beyond the budget. It has items that are not what we think of as emergencies.

If our military men and women have a health problem and there is a condition that requires us to take care of them, that takes extra money. We deal with these issues in the Armed Services Committee. But that is not an emergency. Those kinds of things happen all the time. We are allocating $13 billion for an Agent Orange compensation plan that, I have to say, appears to me to not be written very tightly. Anyone who basically served in Vietnam who has heart disease can apparently claim some benefit under it.

I am not saying that is unjustified. It may be. What I will say is, it is not the kind of thing we should use emergency spending for when the country is going in a wrong direction.

We will soon be voting on tax extenders. I want to send a warning out to my colleagues and to the people who are concerned about the state of the American economy. I will quote some comments that have been said recently.

Keith Hennessey, who is former director of the National Economic Council, wrote this:

House Democrats have modified their ``extenders'' bill and

appear to be bringing it to the floor for a vote today.

Monday's version would have increased the deficit by $134

billion over the next decade. Today's version would increase

the deficit by $84 billion over the same timeframe. What hard

choices did the leaders make to cut the net deficit impact by

$50 billion? None. They simply extended the most expensive

provisions for a shorter period of time.

What did they do? There was a complaint they had $134

billion in increased debt, and they were dealing with some

issues. They did not pay for them over a long enough time.

They just reduced it.

Mr. Hennessey goes on to say:

The new bill extends the unemployment insurance and COBRA

health insurance benefits through November 2010, rather than

December of 2010 in Monday's version.

They just reduced it one month to save a little money there and make the bill look a little better. Does anyone doubt we will be coming back to extend it further in the future?

Then he goes on to say:

The Medicare ``doctors' fix'' would extend through 2011,

instead of through 2013 . . .

Which means that after this year, our physicians will be back here complaining about the impending 21, 22 percent cut in their Medicare payments. They do not get paid enough now. We cannot cut our physicians 20 percent. They are going to quit practicing and stop doing Medicare work.

What did they do when somebody said: You are increasing the debt too much? We will just pass the doctors fix through the end of this year and push it on to the next, instead of doing it through 2013 like they planned.

He goes on to say:

The Congressional Budget Office has to score the amendment

as written, so these two provisions are scored as ``saving''

$50 billion relative to the Monday version. But just as it

was unreasonable to assume that the increased Medicare

spending for doctors would suddenly drop at the end of 2013,

it is similarly foolhardy it will stop [in the future]. They

are doing in this bill exactly what they did in the two

health care bills that were rammed through in March--shifting

some of the spending into future legislation to reduce the

apparent cost of the current bill.

Will it work again?

Well, we are going to see.

Mr. President, I would just make one more note. An editorial in today's New York Times titled ``Easy Money, Hard Truths'' by famous hedge fund manager David Einhorn, who lives and dies by Wall Street, moving money, keeping up with interest rates, lays out our budget problem very plainly in his column in the New York Times.

Before this recession it appeared that absent action, the

government's long-term commitments would become a problem in

a few decades. I believe the government response to the

recession--

And let me add, that is the extraordinary spending we have done in the last few months--

has created budgetary stress sufficient to bring about the

crisis much sooner. Our generation--not our grandchildren's--

will have to deal with the consequences.

He goes on to say:

According to the Bank for International Settlements, the

United States' structural deficit--the amount of our deficit

adjusted for the economic cycle--has increased from 3.1

percent of gross domestic product in 2007 to 9.2 percent in

2010. This does not take into account the very large

liabilities the government has taken on by socializing losses

in the housing market. We have not seen the bills for bailing

out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and even more so the Federal

Housing Administration, which is issuing government-

guaranteed loans to noncreditworthy borrowers on terms easier

than anything offered during the housing bubble. Government

accounting is done on a cash basis, so promises to pay in the

future--whether Social Security benefits or loan guarantees--

do not count in the budget until the money goes out the door.

He goes on to say:

A good percentage of the structural increase in the deficit

is because last year's ``stimulus'' was not stimulus in the

traditional sense. Rather than a one-time injection of

spending to replace a cyclical reduction in private demand,

the vast majority of the stimulus has been a permanent

increase in the base level of government spending--including

spending on government jobs.

He goes on to say:

In 2008, according to the Cato Institute, the average

Federal civilian salary with benefits was $119,982, compared

with $59,909 for the average private sector worker; the

disparity has grown enormously over the last decade.

Inflation from our current high-spending culture is problematic as well. According to Einhorn:

Government statistics are about the last place one should

look for inflation, as they are designed to not show much.

Over the last 35 years, government has changed the way it

calculates inflation several times. According to the Web site

Shadow Government Statistics, using the pre-1980 method, the

Consumer Price Index would be over 9 percent, compared with

about 2 percent in the official statistics today.

He goes on to say this:

At what level of government debt and future commitments

does government default go from being unthinkable to

inevitable, and how does our government think about that

risk? I recently posed this question to one of the

President's senior economic advisers.

Mr. Einhorn asked him a very tough question: Is a government default on the horizon? Is it unthinkable or now is it on the way to being inevitable? And this is what Mr. Einhorn said the government adviser to President Obama said:

He answered that the government is different from financial

institutions because it can print money, and statistically

the United States is not as bad off as some countries. For an

investor, these promises do not inspire confidence.

So he goes on to warn about the danger of a crisis where the Treasury seeks to get people to buy our Treasury bills, to buy our bonds, and this is what can happen. He said:

In the face of deteriorating market confidence, a rating

agency issues an untimely downgrade, setting off a rush of

sales by existing bondholders. This has been the experience

of many troubled corporations, where downgrades served as the

coup de grace. The current upset in the European sovereign

debt market is a prequel to what might happen here.

That is today's warning in the New York Times, and we should take it very seriously.

The bill before us is irresponsible. It spends too much, it creates too much debt, and we should not have done it. We did not have to do it. And the bill that is coming up, the tax extenders, is also irresponsible. It spends too much money. We do not have to do it, and we should not do it.

The American people understand this completely. They tell me about it everywhere I go. Are we in denial in this body? Do we think it is just business as usual; that we can just continue to spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, and then presumably we will just print money and pay our debts, deflating our currency, eroding the value for the good and decent people of this country who have worked hard and saved all their lives? This is not good. The American people are right. No wonder our ratings with the public are so low.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Americans cherish and respect their military. They support and celebrate those who wear the uniform and serve our Nation. When our Nation is at war, they understand that this obligation of support deepens. Indeed, just Friday, I got forwarded to me an e-mail from a mother whose son was being deployed to Iraq, and she said that the one thing critical to them was to feel they had the support of the American people.

The American people understand that no matter what your ideology, no matter your view of the conflict we are engaged in, you have to support those whom we in Congress have deployed to execute policies that the President and the Congress have adopted. They didn't adopt the policies; we did. And when we send them, they deserve our support. The American people understand that it is not about politics but about the duty of citizenship--a duty to stand in solidarity with those in harm's way and those who defend our freedoms.

I believe these sentiments--shared by Americans overwhelmingly--are important as we evaluate the conduct of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. They will raise serious questions that really must be answered before we have a final vote. I think it is just as important for me to say that.

Some people have suggested that the issue I am going to talk about is not significant. I think it is. I was involved in the debate of the Solomon amendment. I remember how it happened.

Ms. Kagan, who became the dean of Harvard Law in 2003, kicked the military off Harvard's campus and out of its campus recruitment office. She gave the big law firms full access to recruit bright young associates but obstructed the access of the military as it tried to recruit bright young JAG officers to support and represent our soldiers as they were risking their lives for our country. It was an unjustifiable decision. But rather than acknowledge that Ms. Kagan had acted inappropriately, the Obama administration has instead done something that, to me, is odd: it has tried to defend this indefensible activity--distorting the clear facts in the process. We need to get that straight. As we begin to think about this nomination, we need to understand the facts.

During a recent television interview, Vice President Biden actually said that Ms. Kagan was ``right'' to interfere with military recruitment. He then defended her conduct with the suggestion that she was somehow acting under a court order to keep the military people off campus. In reality--let's be correct--I misspoke--to keep the military from utilizing the normal recruitment offices available to every other law firm in America. In reality, the opposite situation is true. Ms. Kagan disregarded the law, really, in essence, in order to obstruct military recruitment during a time of war.

In 1995, Congress passed the Solomon amendment, which required universities to give equal access to military recruiters if they wished to continue to receive taxpayer funding for their university programs.

The passage of the Solomon amendment was a matter of a large national debate. I suspect most Americans have a vivid recollection of those discussions. It was well known that certain law schools, such as Harvard, were blocking the military from going to their recruitment offices and utilizing the resources like any other entity could do.

Administrators at Harvard and other law schools had been restricting access of military recruiters to campuses for several years, citing as their reason their opposition to President Clinton's don't ask, don't tell policy about gays in the military. That was something on which Congress had voted. It is a matter of statutory law, and President Clinton had indicated his support in the way it would be enforced. It came to be fairly settled as a national policy in that regard.

It was Congress's hope that the Solomon amendment would put an end to this obstruction. It basically said: You cannot deny our military the right to come on campus if they are following U.S. law, and still get Federal money. But Harvard persisted nonetheless.

Finally, in 2002, I believe it was the Air Force that made an official complaint. The Department of Defense spoke up. It quoted the statute that had been passed in the U.S. Code, title 10. They quoted it to Harvard and said: If you continue to deny entrance of our military personnel to the recruiting centers, you get no more Federal money. At that point, the principle evaporated. This great principle on which they were standing, a little money dangled in front of them and they folded on this point.

Dean Clark, Ms. Kagan's predecessor at Harvard, got the message, and he complied. The restrictions on the military recruitment were lifted.

This means that when Ms. Kagan became dean of Harvard, the military had full, open, and equal access to campus facilities. That is the policy she inherited; that is the policy she deeply opposed; and that is the policy she set about to reverse.

Ms. Kagan began her efforts to reverse the policy when she joined 53 of her academic colleagues in filing a brief to challenge the Solomon amendment. This case had been filed in another circuit, not Harvard's. If their efforts in this legal attack were successful, they would again obstruct the military's access on campus, and they could do so without losing Federal funds. That is what she wanted, no doubt about that.

Initially, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, not her circuit, heard the case, and they issued a 2 to 1 decision that ordered the district court in New Jersey to issue a preliminary injunction suspending enforcement of the

Solomon amendment in that district in New Jersey. The injunction was to take effect after a certain time period. I believe 50 days. But that injunction was never issued, even in that one district of New Jersey, because the Supreme Court of the United States undertook to hear the case, and the court of appeals, respecting the Supreme Court's view, eliminated their order staying the enforcement of the Solomon amendment.

I note, even if the Third Circuit's ruling had not been stayed, it would have applied only to the Third Circuit, not to Harvard. Remember, the Solomon amendment was a duly enacted law passed by the Congress.

Fully understanding all of this, as the trained and educated dean she was, Dean Kagan still used this ruling as a pretext to deny the enforceability of the Solomon amendment on the Harvard campus, again kicking the military out of the campus recruiting office. It did not apply. It was never made applicable and certainly not made applicable to the Harvard campus. But yet she used that as a pretext to carry out her desires about the don't ask, don't tell policy.

But I am told: Don't worry about that, Jeff. They could still talk to veterans groups on campus. They were not barred from campus. They just could not use the center for recruiting, but they could still talk to people on campus, and it is not so important. Well, if it is not so important, why did Dean Kagan go to such great lengths to have the law overturned, even risking Harvard's financial support? It was important.

Barred from institutional access, the military now had to work through a student group, the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. The veterans association, however, did not believe this was fair to them. They had courses to attend and school work to do. They wrote to their classmates about Dean Kagan's decision and explained they were unable to fill the role of the military recruiters that she had excluded. This is what they said:

Given our tiny membership, meager budget, and lack of any

office space, we possess neither the time nor the resources

to routinely schedule campus rooms or advertise extensively

for outside organizations, as is the norm for most recruiting

events.

But Dean Kagan still did not relent. Only when the military again threatened to cut off money to Harvard did she give in. This was the second time they had to make this threat. This statute says the Secretary of Defense shall notify them that they will no longer get Federal funds if they do not allow recruiters on campus.

Ms. Kagan reversed Harvard's existing policy in order to obstruct the access of the military recruiters. She disregarded a congressional statute. Eventually, her view was rejected by the Supreme Court.

So what happened when the Third Circuit case got to the Supreme Court? She filed a brief with a group of other academics attacking the Solomon amendment. What happened? By an 8-to-0 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected her brief.

According to Dean Kagan, actions she took against the military were motivated by her opposition to don't ask, don't tell. But somehow her fierce opposition was not enough to prevent her, I note parenthetically, from serving as a loyal aide to the man who created the policy, President Clinton. No, instead she directed her punishment to the military that had nothing to do with it. The soldiers, the recruiters who wanted to come on Harvard campus had nothing to do with establishing this don't ask, don't tell policy. It was Congress's law. It is statutory, and President Clinton endorsed it with his don't ask, don't tell enforcement strategy. It was the law of the land. It was not a policy dreamed up by some general somewhere. She knew that.

Ms. Kagan's conduct may have been applauded by some in the progressive circles of academia, but I think the American people would be uneasy about it. They are not sympathetic to the actions she took against the brave men and women who defend the rights and freedoms of Ms. Kagan, of Harvard professors, and of all Americans.

Dean Kagan has no judicial record to examine, and she has very little experience as a lawyer. One of the most prominent features of her legal experience and her tenure at Harvard is scarred by her open mistreatment of the military and her disregard for very clear law. I wish it were not so, but it is.

This matter does raise questions of whether Dean Kagan would be able to serve all Americans as a responsible, impartial jurist or whether she would bring her ideological agenda to the bench and attempt to get around the Constitution and the laws of the United States to effectuate what she thinks might be a better policy. That is the question I think is legitimate to ask, as well as to ask, in a serious way: What were you thinking when you punished our men and women in uniform because you did not like what Congress and your President--President Clinton--did with regard to their policies on gays in the military?

It is not a small matter. I believe this decision was clearly wrong. I believe it was not lawful. I believe it was not good policy. We will need to talk about that as we go forward and to hear a sincere explanation from the nominee.

This is not something from which we cannot learn. It is not necessarily the decisive matter in this person's nomination. But it is not correct to say it is an insignificant matter. It is a significant matter, a very significant matter. And it is a matter of significance such that whoever comments about it, even if it is the Vice President of the United States, they should be accurate. They should not be inaccurate, as has happened repeatedly from my observation in the media, as well as my good friend, our former colleague, Senator Biden, who also served on the Judiciary Committee. It is time we get these facts straight.

I also wish to express a concern about one more matter. During her time in the Clinton White House, 1995 to 1999, Dean Kagan, now Solicitor General Kagan, served in the White House Counsel's Office and later as Director of Domestic Policy Council in the White House. That is one of the few extensive public records she has. We need to obtain the documents relating to that service in advance of the hearings that now have been set for June 28. I think it is a rush to get ready for June 28, but I told Senator Leahy, our chairman, that he is the boss, and we will try to be ready by the 28th. But we both know it is important to have these documents in time to examine them before the committee hearing because so little other documents exist as to her record.

All the documents that have been requested I believe the committee is entitled to see. Senator Leahy has joined with me. We worked together on this. It appears President Obama has decided not to assert any claims of Executive privilege that would block the production of any of these documents. We received a letter from the Clinton Library on Friday where these records are held indicating that they understand President Obama will not make any claims of privilege.

The White House recognizes these documents are an important part of Ms. Kagan's record. In fact, after she was nominated, the White House sent a public letter to the National Archives asking for release of documents relating to her service in the Clinton White House. They included all of her e-mail documents in their request. But the White House request and media requests under FOIA are different from the committee request.

So last week, Chairman Leahy and I sent a letter to the Clinton Library requesting these documents.

I appreciate the leadership of Senator Leahy, who has been through so many of these confirmation matters--this is consistent with our history--and I appreciate his efforts on the letter and to get this information. But I would note there are important distinctions between the Obama White House's request and the committee's request.

First, the restrictions that apply to run-of-the-mill Freedom of Information Act requests do not apply when the committee requests document. Second, under the Presidential Records Act, President Clinton would normally be able to block the release of certain documents for up to 12 years. But under the PRA, the committee's request overrides any attempt by President Clinton to block the release of these records. Faced with a committee request, the only basis for withholding documents is executive privilege, and

President Obama has apparently decided not to do that.

So the concern is that last week the director of the library was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying that it would be ``very difficult'' for them to comply by the June 28 hearing date. The director said, ``there are just too many things here,'' and that ``these are legal documents and they are presidential records, and they have to be read by an archivist and vetted for any legal restrictions. And they have to be read line by line.''

In the letter we received on Friday, the library indicated they will start delivering documents by June 4--3 weeks before the hearing--and then they will make additional deliveries on a rolling basis. They did not tell us by when they will provide all the documents. I know they have a hard job. Maybe they have to do all these things, but the fact is we have a deadline that has been set by Chairman Leahy to start the hearing on June 28, and we are not able to, in my view, conduct a good hearing if we don't have the documents.

So I am trying to make clear to my colleagues that we are heading toward what could be a train wreck. I don't believe this committee can go forward without these documents in the request and have an accurate hearing. The public record of a nominee to such a lifetime position as Justice on the Supreme Court is of such importance that we cannot go forward without these documents. I hope we will get those in a timely fashion. If not, I think we will have no choice but to ask for a delay in the beginning of the hearings.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Americans cherish and respect their military. They support and celebrate those who wear the uniform and serve our Nation. When our Nation is at war, they understand that this obligation of support deepens. Indeed, just Friday, I got forwarded to me an e-mail from a mother whose son was being deployed to Iraq, and she said that the one thing critical to them was to feel they had the support of the American people.

The American people understand that no matter what your ideology, no matter your view of the conflict we are engaged in, you have to support those whom we in Congress have deployed to execute policies that the President and the Congress have adopted. They didn't adopt the policies; we did. And when we send them, they deserve our support. The American people understand that it is not about politics but about the duty of citizenship--a duty to stand in solidarity with those in harm's way and those who defend our freedoms.

I believe these sentiments--shared by Americans overwhelmingly--are important as we evaluate the conduct of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. They will raise serious questions that really must be answered before we have a final vote. I think it is just as important for me to say that.

Some people have suggested that the issue I am going to talk about is not significant. I think it is. I was involved in the debate of the Solomon amendment. I remember how it happened.

Ms. Kagan, who became the dean of Harvard Law in 2003, kicked the military off Harvard's campus and out of its campus recruitment office. She gave the big law firms full access to recruit bright young associates but obstructed the access of the military as it tried to recruit bright young JAG officers to support and represent our soldiers as they were risking their lives for our country. It was an unjustifiable decision. But rather than acknowledge that Ms. Kagan had acted inappropriately, the Obama administration has instead done something that, to me, is odd: it has tried to defend this indefensible activity--distorting the clear facts in the process. We need to get that straight. As we begin to think about this nomination, we need to understand the facts.

During a recent television interview, Vice President Biden actually said that Ms. Kagan was ``right'' to interfere with military recruitment. He then defended her conduct with the suggestion that she was somehow acting under a court order to keep the military people off campus. In reality--let's be correct--I misspoke--to keep the military from utilizing the normal recruitment offices available to every other law firm in America. In reality, the opposite situation is true. Ms. Kagan disregarded the law, really, in essence, in order to obstruct military recruitment during a time of war.

In 1995, Congress passed the Solomon amendment, which required universities to give equal access to military recruiters if they wished to continue to receive taxpayer funding for their university programs.

The passage of the Solomon amendment was a matter of a large national debate. I suspect most Americans have a vivid recollection of those discussions. It was well known that certain law schools, such as Harvard, were blocking the military from going to their recruitment offices and utilizing the resources like any other entity could do.

Administrators at Harvard and other law schools had been restricting access of military recruiters to campuses for several years, citing as their reason their opposition to President Clinton's don't ask, don't tell policy about gays in the military. That was something on which Congress had voted. It is a matter of statutory law, and President Clinton had indicated his support in the way it would be enforced. It came to be fairly settled as a national policy in that regard.

It was Congress's hope that the Solomon amendment would put an end to this obstruction. It basically said: You cannot deny our military the right to come on campus if they are following U.S. law, and still get Federal money. But Harvard persisted nonetheless.

Finally, in 2002, I believe it was the Air Force that made an official complaint. The Department of Defense spoke up. It quoted the statute that had been passed in the U.S. Code, title 10. They quoted it to Harvard and said: If you continue to deny entrance of our military personnel to the recruiting centers, you get no more Federal money. At that point, the principle evaporated. This great principle on which they were standing, a little money dangled in front of them and they folded on this point.

Dean Clark, Ms. Kagan's predecessor at Harvard, got the message, and he complied. The restrictions on the military recruitment were lifted.

This means that when Ms. Kagan became dean of Harvard, the military had full, open, and equal access to campus facilities. That is the policy she inherited; that is the policy she deeply opposed; and that is the policy she set about to reverse.

Ms. Kagan began her efforts to reverse the policy when she joined 53 of her academic colleagues in filing a brief to challenge the Solomon amendment. This case had been filed in another circuit, not Harvard's. If their efforts in this legal attack were successful, they would again obstruct the military's access on campus, and they could do so without losing Federal funds. That is what she wanted, no doubt about that.

Initially, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, not her circuit, heard the case, and they issued a 2 to 1 decision that ordered the district court in New Jersey to issue a preliminary injunction suspending enforcement of the

Solomon amendment in that district in New Jersey. The injunction was to take effect after a certain time period. I believe 50 days. But that injunction was never issued, even in that one district of New Jersey, because the Supreme Court of the United States undertook to hear the case, and the court of appeals, respecting the Supreme Court's view, eliminated their order staying the enforcement of the Solomon amendment.

I note, even if the Third Circuit's ruling had not been stayed, it would have applied only to the Third Circuit, not to Harvard. Remember, the Solomon amendment was a duly enacted law passed by the Congress.

Fully understanding all of this, as the trained and educated dean she was, Dean Kagan still used this ruling as a pretext to deny the enforceability of the Solomon amendment on the Harvard campus, again kicking the military out of the campus recruiting office. It did not apply. It was never made applicable and certainly not made applicable to the Harvard campus. But yet she used that as a pretext to carry out her desires about the don't ask, don't tell policy.

But I am told: Don't worry about that, Jeff. They could still talk to veterans groups on campus. They were not barred from campus. They just could not use the center for recruiting, but they could still talk to people on campus, and it is not so important. Well, if it is not so important, why did Dean Kagan go to such great lengths to have the law overturned, even risking Harvard's financial support? It was important.

Barred from institutional access, the military now had to work through a student group, the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. The veterans association, however, did not believe this was fair to them. They had courses to attend and school work to do. They wrote to their classmates about Dean Kagan's decision and explained they were unable to fill the role of the military recruiters that she had excluded. This is what they said:

Given our tiny membership, meager budget, and lack of any

office space, we possess neither the time nor the resources

to routinely schedule campus rooms or advertise extensively

for outside organizations, as is the norm for most recruiting

events.

But Dean Kagan still did not relent. Only when the military again threatened to cut off money to Harvard did she give in. This was the second time they had to make this threat. This statute says the Secretary of Defense shall notify them that they will no longer get Federal funds if they do not allow recruiters on campus.

Ms. Kagan reversed Harvard's existing policy in order to obstruct the access of the military recruiters. She disregarded a congressional statute. Eventually, her view was rejected by the Supreme Court.

So what happened when the Third Circuit case got to the Supreme Court? She filed a brief with a group of other academics attacking the Solomon amendment. What happened? By an 8-to-0 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected her brief.

According to Dean Kagan, actions she took against the military were motivated by her opposition to don't ask, don't tell. But somehow her fierce opposition was not enough to prevent her, I note parenthetically, from serving as a loyal aide to the man who created the policy, President Clinton. No, instead she directed her punishment to the military that had nothing to do with it. The soldiers, the recruiters who wanted to come on Harvard campus had nothing to do with establishing this don't ask, don't tell policy. It was Congress's law. It is statutory, and President Clinton endorsed it with his don't ask, don't tell enforcement strategy. It was the law of the land. It was not a policy dreamed up by some general somewhere. She knew that.

Ms. Kagan's conduct may have been applauded by some in the progressive circles of academia, but I think the American people would be uneasy about it. They are not sympathetic to the actions she took against the brave men and women who defend the rights and freedoms of Ms. Kagan, of Harvard professors, and of all Americans.

Dean Kagan has no judicial record to examine, and she has very little experience as a lawyer. One of the most prominent features of her legal experience and her tenure at Harvard is scarred by her open mistreatment of the military and her disregard for very clear law. I wish it were not so, but it is.

This matter does raise questions of whether Dean Kagan would be able to serve all Americans as a responsible, impartial jurist or whether she would bring her ideological agenda to the bench and attempt to get around the Constitution and the laws of the United States to effectuate what she thinks might be a better policy. That is the question I think is legitimate to ask, as well as to ask, in a serious way: What were you thinking when you punished our men and women in uniform because you did not like what Congress and your President--President Clinton--did with regard to their policies on gays in the military?

It is not a small matter. I believe this decision was clearly wrong. I believe it was not lawful. I believe it was not good policy. We will need to talk about that as we go forward and to hear a sincere explanation from the nominee.

This is not something from which we cannot learn. It is not necessarily the decisive matter in this person's nomination. But it is not correct to say it is an insignificant matter. It is a significant matter, a very significant matter. And it is a matter of significance such that whoever comments about it, even if it is the Vice President of the United States, they should be accurate. They should not be inaccurate, as has happened repeatedly from my observation in the media, as well as my good friend, our former colleague, Senator Biden, who also served on the Judiciary Committee. It is time we get these facts straight.

I also wish to express a concern about one more matter. During her time in the Clinton White House, 1995 to 1999, Dean Kagan, now Solicitor General Kagan, served in the White House Counsel's Office and later as Director of Domestic Policy Council in the White House. That is one of the few extensive public records she has. We need to obtain the documents relating to that service in advance of the hearings that now have been set for June 28. I think it is a rush to get ready for June 28, but I told Senator Leahy, our chairman, that he is the boss, and we will try to be ready by the 28th. But we both know it is important to have these documents in time to examine them before the committee hearing because so little other documents exist as to her record.

All the documents that have been requested I believe the committee is entitled to see. Senator Leahy has joined with me. We worked together on this. It appears President Obama has decided not to assert any claims of Executive privilege that would block the production of any of these documents. We received a letter from the Clinton Library on Friday where these records are held indicating that they understand President Obama will not make any claims of privilege.

The White House recognizes these documents are an important part of Ms. Kagan's record. In fact, after she was nominated, the White House sent a public letter to the National Archives asking for release of documents relating to her service in the Clinton White House. They included all of her e-mail documents in their request. But the White House request and media requests under FOIA are different from the committee request.

So last week, Chairman Leahy and I sent a letter to the Clinton Library requesting these documents.

I appreciate the leadership of Senator Leahy, who has been through so many of these confirmation matters--this is consistent with our history--and I appreciate his efforts on the letter and to get this information. But I would note there are important distinctions between the Obama White House's request and the committee's request.

First, the restrictions that apply to run-of-the-mill Freedom of Information Act requests do not apply when the committee requests document. Second, under the Presidential Records Act, President Clinton would normally be able to block the release of certain documents for up to 12 years. But under the PRA, the committee's request overrides any attempt by President Clinton to block the release of these records. Faced with a committee request, the only basis for withholding documents is executive privilege, and

President Obama has apparently decided not to do that.

So the concern is that last week the director of the library was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying that it would be ``very difficult'' for them to comply by the June 28 hearing date. The director said, ``there are just too many things here,'' and that ``these are legal documents and they are presidential records, and they have to be read by an archivist and vetted for any legal restrictions. And they have to be read line by line.''

In the letter we received on Friday, the library indicated they will start delivering documents by June 4--3 weeks before the hearing--and then they will make additional deliveries on a rolling basis. They did not tell us by when they will provide all the documents. I know they have a hard job. Maybe they have to do all these things, but the fact is we have a deadline that has been set by Chairman Leahy to start the hearing on June 28, and we are not able to, in my view, conduct a good hearing if we don't have the documents.

So I am trying to make clear to my colleagues that we are heading toward what could be a train wreck. I don't believe this committee can go forward without these documents in the request and have an accurate hearing. The public record of a nominee to such a lifetime position as Justice on the Supreme Court is of such importance that we cannot go forward without these documents. I hope we will get those in a timely fashion. If not, I think we will have no choice but to ask for a delay in the beginning of the hearings.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, when our colleagues arrive, I will be pleased to yield the floor to them, but I will be offering, after 3 o'clock, along with Senator Claire McCaskill, my Democratic colleague from Missouri, an amendment we voted on before in the Senate. It is an amendment that would establish 3-year discretionary spending caps, limits on how much we can spend, how much debt we can run up. To violate those limits, it would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate and the House to pass. So this is a spending limitation amendment that will have some teeth to it.

It will allow us to have in effect a budget because it looks like, even in light of the incredibly disastrous financial crisis we are in, we will not pass a budget this year. We need to do that. But the House has not even moved one. One has been moved out of committee on a straight party-line vote, but there are indications we may not move it in the Senate, and if the House does not move, we will not have a budget.

What our amendment would do is help fill that gap. That is another reason for it. It would set spending limits for 3 years. The limits we would set are the limits President Obama submitted as spending limits last time. I recall, of my colleagues, 59 Senators voted for it, 1 short of moving through the Senate, a few weeks ago. I will talk about that at 3.

I see my colleague is here, Senator Johanns. I will be pleased to yield the floor. We will talk about this amendment later.

Mr. President, when our colleagues arrive, I will be pleased to yield the floor to them, but I will be offering, after 3 o'clock, along with Senator Claire McCaskill, my Democratic colleague from Missouri, an amendment we voted on before in the Senate. It is an amendment that would establish 3-year discretionary spending caps, limits on how much we can spend, how much debt we can run up. To violate those limits, it would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate and the House to pass. So this is a spending limitation amendment that will have some teeth to it.

It will allow us to have in effect a budget because it looks like, even in light of the incredibly disastrous financial crisis we are in, we will not pass a budget this year. We need to do that. But the House has not even moved one. One has been moved out of committee on a straight party-line vote, but there are indications we may not move it in the Senate, and if the House does not move, we will not have a budget.

What our amendment would do is help fill that gap. That is another reason for it. It would set spending limits for 3 years. The limits we would set are the limits President Obama submitted as spending limits last time. I recall, of my colleagues, 59 Senators voted for it, 1 short of moving through the Senate, a few weeks ago. I will talk about that at 3.

I see my colleague is here, Senator Johanns. I will be pleased to yield the floor. We will talk about this amendment later.

Mr. President, I won't discuss any further the amendment I am going to call up. It was offered by Senator McCaskill and me 2 or 3 weeks ago. We reached as high as 59 votes for it, one short of passage. It is an amendment that would put a statutory limit on spending, making it more difficult to violate the limits we put by requiring a two-thirds vote to break that limit except in time of war and emergency.

I ask at this time to call up amendment No. 4173.

I now ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Acting President pro tempore and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I won't discuss any further the amendment I am going to call up. It was offered by Senator McCaskill and me 2 or 3 weeks ago. We reached as high as 59 votes for it, one short of passage. It is an amendment that would put a statutory limit on spending, making it more difficult to violate the limits we put by requiring a two-thirds vote to break that limit except in time of war and emergency.

I ask at this time to call up amendment No. 4173.

I now ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

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

Mr. President, I thank the Acting President pro tempore and yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here to raise a budget point of order. The substitute and the underlying bill came to the floor spending money the Banking Committee did not have in its 302(a) budget allocation. It has exceeded the budget allocation. How much direct spending is in the Dodd-Lincoln substitute as amended? About $21 billion, partially offset by raising revenues resulting in an increase to the deficit by $10.6 billion over the 5-year timeframe--that is the timeframe we are using for budget enforcement--and over the 10-year period, reflected in the baseline, it would increase the deficit by $19.7 billion.

So our 10-year deficit outlook--the Obama administration policies will contribute to the debt by running massive deficits for the next 10 years, averaging nearly $1 trillion a year from 2011 through 2020. The projected deficit of 8.9 percent of GDP for 2011 will come at a time when the administration is predicting a return to prerecession economic growth. The total public debt stands at over $13 trillion, with fiscal year 2009's $1.4 trillion deficit having contributed significantly to our Nation's credit card bill. With unsustainable levels like this, the Senate must knowingly, consciously, and with full awareness decide each time a bill comes to the floor to increase our debt burden further.

I object and therefore raise a budget point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of legislation that exceeds an authorizing committee's 302(a) allocation. The substitute, as amended, provides for net increases in direct spending of $21 billion and, if adopted, would cause the underlying bill to exceed the allocation to the Banking Committee over the 2010-2014 period.

I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits the consideration of legislation that exceeds an authorizing committee's 302(a) allocation. The substitute, as amended, provides for net increases in direct spending of $21 billion, and if adopted it would cause the underlying bill to exceed the allocation of the Banking Committee over the 2010- 2014 period.

Mr. President, I rise today to address some very important concerns that arise in my mind in the evaluation of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START, that was submitted yesterday to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. I do not believe that the Senate must ratify this treaty, as some of my colleagues suggest. But, rather, I begin with the proposition that a new treaty with Russia is not essential for our national security; may well be a distraction from addressing the real threats of nuclear proliferation by other nations and nuclear terrorism; and to the extent the President puts forth this treaty as a step toward his idea of a world without nuclear weapons, it is a naive and potentially risky strategic approach.

Basically, the purpose of arms control is to reduce the risk of war by enhancing strategic stability and security and, if possible, lessen the costs of preparing for war. It is clear that the strategic balance between the United States and Russia is, for the most part, stable, while U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals are already on a downward slope.

Both sides had made a commitment, under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, to reduce deployed nuclear weapons to a range between 2,200 and 1,700 warheads, which was a significant reduction from the START I level of 6,000 warheads. Furthermore, the United States has no plans to increase the size of its nuclear force, and it appears to most informed observers that Russia, for economic reasons, was headed to even lower levels. Quite simply, there is no responsible prospect of an expanding nuclear weapons competition between our two nations. The United States and Russian nuclear arsenals are not the real problem today. Regrettably, the one category of nuclear weapons in which there is a true imbalance--tactical nuclear weapons--is not addressed by the new treaty.

I would agree with my colleagues, such as Senator Dick Lugar, that the verification provisions under START I should not have been allowed to expire with the treaty on December 5, but this could have been dealt with through a simple 5-year extension as permitted by the START I treaty. Instead, the administration was committed to a more ambitious approach which it has found to be more challenging than expected, which in turn has led to more U.S. concessions.

The President wanted to take a significant, tangible step toward his vision of a more peaceful world without nuclear weapons--a vision I find naive at best and, if achieved, likely to make the world less safe. As nuclear strategist and Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling has recently observed, a world without nuclear weapons would be one in which countries would make plans to rearm in order to preempt other countries from going nuclear first. Schelling writes: ``Every crisis would be a nuclear crisis. The urge to preempt would dominate; whoever gets the first few weapons will coerce or preempt. It would be a nervous world.''

So far, at least, nuclear weapons have imposed restraint on world powers--what will happen to that restraint in the absence of nuclear weapons? What conclusions will the Russians and our allies draw from this vision of nuclear disarmament? Will our allies and partners, who have come to depend on U.S. nuclear security guarantees, pursue their own nuclear arms? Will Russia, which is increasing its dependence on nuclear weapons, interpret this as a sign of weakness and perhaps pursue a more muscular foreign policy directed against the west?

Additionally, if we draw our weapon numbers too low, the perverse result may be that smaller nations, or rogue states may believe they could become peer competitors.

In addition to the dream of nuclear disarmament, the administration's case for the new treaty rests on three

principal arguments: No. 1, that it will improve U.S. and international security by reducing U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces; No. 2, that it will transform or ``reset'' relations with Russia, such that Russia will now become a partner with the United States in addressing the true nuclear dangers of proliferation and terrorism; and No. 3, that it will provide the United States the moral credibility and leadership needed to pursue its nonproliferation objectives with the rest of the world.

First, the current declining stockpile of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons is not a factor contributing to international instability, and reducing our current nuclear arsenal to the new START limit of 1,550 warheads will not have any impact on the nuclear or nonproliferation policies of the rest of the world. If reducing U.S. deployed nuclear forces from Cold War highs of over 10,000 nuclear warheads to the current level of some 2,000 has had no impact, why should the reduction of another 500 warheads make a difference?

States decide whether to acquire nuclear capabilities not because the United States and Russia have large nuclear arsenals but because those states believe nuclear weapons will enhance their national security, preserve their regimes, enhance their prestige, or further their ambitions. Likewise, states will determine whether to support U.S. nonproliferation efforts on the basis of their national interests, not on how low Russian and American nuclear stockpiles go.

As to the claim that a new START treaty with the Russians will improve relations or secure Russia's assistance in addressing other threats to international stability, there is little evidence to suggest this is the case. To the contrary, these negotiations have provided the Russians leverage over missile defense, prompt global strike, and verification issues that have marred the final agreement.

Finally, I don't see any significant cooperation from Russia in securing meaningful sanctions against Iran. To be sure, if we had any expectation that the new START treaty would secure Russian assistance in dealing with Iran, we should have drawn a more explicit linkage between the two. In other words: no new START treaty without concrete Russian assistance in obtaining a United Nations Security Council resolution imposing real, crippling sanctions on Iran. This may have been a missed opportunity.

Thus far, my remarks suggest I don't see decisive reasons to vote for the new START treaty--but are there reasons to vote against the treaty? The ratification process can help us examine several concerns.

As I evaluate the treaty, I will take a broad view that examines not only the implications for U.S. strategic nuclear forces but how this treaty impacts our relationship with allies and other military capabilities important to our national security. I will want to know whether this treaty disadvantages the United States in any way or makes us less safe or constrains our ability to extend nuclear security guarantees to our allies.

Finally, my decision whether to support this treaty will depend on the administration's firm commitment to a serious nuclear modernization effort for our weapons, nuclear laboratories, and delivery systems--for as we go to lower numbers of nuclear weapons, it becomes increasingly important that those remaining weapons be safe, secure, and reliable.

The central consideration in evaluating this treaty is the impact the proposed numerical limitations will have on U.S. nuclear forces and in particular our ability to extend the nuclear umbrella to our allies and partners.

The administration will have to provide additional details regarding the number of ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers the United States will field under the 700 strategic delivery system limitation--and how it plans to modernize those forces.

Last year, we were told by Admiral Mullen and General Cartwright that reductions below 800 delivery systems may be cause for some concern, while former Secretary James Schlesinger, in testifying on the new START treaty before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, recently noted that the ``numbers specified are adequate, though barely so.''

We need to understand, therefore, the implications of this limitation, which requires a reduction of about 180 in the number of currently deployed U.S. delivery systems. In fact, the reduction in nuclear capability will be larger for the United States since the treaty requires that conventionally-armed--nonnuclear--ballistic missiles, in the case of prompt global strike, be counted against the 700 total.

Likewise, we need to understand how the Russians might configure their nuclear forces under the treaty and then conduct a net assessment to appreciate the true implications of the new START treaty for U.S. national security.

Perhaps the greatest deficiency of the new START agreement is that it does not address the 10-to-1 disparity between Russia and the United States in the area of tactical nuclear weapons. As Secretary Schlesinger recently testified, ``the significance of tactical nuclear weapons rises steadily as strategic nuclear arms are reduced.''

Russia simply refused to allow these into the negotiations. So the administration has left this for the ``next agreement,'' though I am not sure what leverage the United States will have over a Russia that has become more, not less, dependent on its tactical nuclear weapons.

An irony of this is that Russian tactical nuclear weapons, because they are more widely dispersed and greater in number, pose a greater risk of contributing to nuclear proliferation and terrorism which, according to the administration, this treaty is supposed to help us avert.

The Strategic Posture Commission estimates Russia may have approximately 3,800 operational tactical nuclear warheads and that the combination of new warhead designs and precision delivery systems ``open up new possibilities for Russian efforts to threaten to use nuclear weapons to influence regional conflicts.''

Likewise, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy has observed that the Russians are ``actually increasing their reliance on nuclear weapons and the role of nuclear weapons in their strategy.''

What if you are one of the 31 countries dependent on the United States for nuclear security guarantees? How would you interpret the fact that the United States is going down to 1,550 strategic warheads while the Russians maintain at least twice that number of shorter range nuclear warheads that in most cases are able to reach your country? What impact will this have on the credibility of U.S. nuclear guarantees and upon the incentives other countries may have to acquire their own nuclear capabilities?

One final point on this issue: It disturbs me that Russian tactical nuclear weapons were not addressed in this treaty, yet the United States conceded to Russian demands to place limits on conventional prompt global strike capabilities by counting conventional ICBMs under the limits for delivery systems.

It is striking, moreover, that the preamble would be ``mindful of the impact of conventionally armed ICBMs and SLBMs on strategic stability,'' yet be silent on the impact of tactical nuclear weapons on this very same strategic stability. What is more destabilizing: conventionally armed ICBMs or thousands of tactical nuclear weapons?

Despite being told consistently from the very beginning of negotiations that missile defense will be addressed only in the preamble of the treaty, we now discover that article V contains a direct restriction on U.S. missile defense activities (i.e., cannot convert ICBM or SLBM launchers into launchers for missile defense interceptors). Will this establish a dangerous precedent with respect to including missile defense limitations in future offensive arms control agreements? Why did the U.S. side feel it necessary to concede this point?

What raises concern, with respect to article V, are other efforts by the Russians to create a linkage between U.S. missile defense activities and Russian adherence to the new START treaty. When viewed together, the treaty's preamble, the Russian unilateral statement on missile defense, and remarks by senior Russian officials provide the potential for Russia to threaten or blackmail the United States against increasing its missile defense capabilities by threatening to withdraw from the treaty:

When the preamble states that ``current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties,'' does this not suggest that moving beyond ``current'' systems could provide grounds for withdrawal?

When the Russian's note in their unilateral statement that the treaty can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively, and then links American missile defense capabilities to the treaty's withdrawal clause, should we not read this as an attempt to exert political pressure to forestall continued development and deployment of U.S. missile defenses?

Finally, what are we to make of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov's warning on March 28 that ``the treaty and all the obligations it contains are valid only within the context of the levels which are now present in the sphere of strategic defensive systems''? Does this mean the Russians will pull out of START if we deploy additional ground- based interceptors in Alaska or if we deploy the SM-3 block IIB missile in Europe?

Despite the administration's assurances that none of this is legally binding, and that the U.S. unilateral statement counters this by expressing our intent to continue to deploy missile defenses, I can not help but worry that these provisions will have a negative impact on U.S. decisionmaking with respect to missile defense. After all, the administration did abandon plans to deploy ground-based interceptors in Europe--an action most believe was an irritant in United States-Russian relations.

There is something fundamentally disturbing about entering into a treaty with the Russians when we have such a divergence in view over a substantial issue like missile defense. To be sure, the Russian side has already expressed displeasure with U.S. plans to deploy missile defenses in Europe and to enhance the capability of the SM-3 missile to intercept long-range missiles launched from the Middle East.

Adding to my apprehension is recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by a senior Department of Defense official, who stated that the United States has not yet even approached the Russians to determine whether the SM-3 IIB is, will cause them to withdraw from the treaty. They can withdraw for any reason.

This likely sets the stage for misunderstanding and confrontation as the United States continues its missile defense activities, particularly in Europe.

Clarifying this ambiguity, coupled with affirmation by the administration that it intends to improve the defense of our homeland and go forward with all phases of its planned missile defense deployments in Europe, is a prerequisite for ratification of the new START treaty.

Our ability to verify Russian compliance with the new agreement is also important. One could even argue that as we go to lower levels of nuclear weapons, verification becomes more important, as the consequences of cheating become more profound. But the standard should not be whether we can verify Russian compliance with the terms of the treaty per se--though this is important--but whether we maintain sufficient confidence in our national ability to monitor developments in Russian strategic forces that, if gone undetected, could alter the strategic balance.

So when the administration argues that ``verification procedures in this Treaty will be simpler and less costly to implement than the old START treaty,'' I am inclined to ask why verification procedures have become less stringent and whether such procedures make it harder for the United States to fully account for Russian strategic forces. Specifically:

Will we be able to determine whether the Russians are developing new, more powerful missiles capable of carrying multiple warheads?

Are the Russians capable of secretly producing and storing missiles and warheads that could afford them a military advantage?

While we may have confidence in the number of missiles deployed by Russia today, can we maintain this confidence over the life of the treaty?

Ultimately, it falls upon our intelligence community to monitor Russian strategic force developments. Thus it is important for the Senate, as part of its advice and consent responsibilities, to review carefully the National Intelligence Estimate on our ability to effectively verify the treaty that normally accompanies arms control agreements. I don't believe we have seen that document yet.

I have identified just a few important issues the Senate will consider as we move forward, and it is likely there will be others as we continue to examine the treaty text, protocol, and annexes. Particularly troubling at this time is the disparity in tactical nuclear weapons which are not addressed in this treaty, and the constraints on missile defense and conventional prompt global strike in a treaty intended only to limit offensive nuclear weapons. At the very least this is a bad precedent, and I have no doubt Russia is attempting to revive the ABM Treaty regime and forestall U.S. prompt global strike capabilities.

This was a treaty that Russia needed more than the United States. Not only were Russian strategic nuclear forces headed to lower numbers for economic reasons, Russia wants an arms control agreement with the United States. Such a binational agreement validates its superpower status. The United States therefore had an opportunity to leverage Russian desire for an agreement to obtain Russian cooperation on a host of issues, starting with Iran. But the administration missed this opportunity because it was so anxious to advance its vision of a world without nuclear weapons that it failed to see how START could help address the more immediate threat of nuclear proliferation.