Floor Statements

Mr. President, as my colleagues know, Brian Lamb, the founder and CEO of C SPAN, recently announced his decision to retire.

Brian Lamb is a broadcasting legend who made the workings of our government accessible and transparent to every American through C SPAN, the nonprofit cable network he founded 33 years ago. I have had the privilege of knowing Brian for many years, and there are many people across the country who still believe we were separated at birth.

More seriously, Brian's unquestioned integrity and profound commitment to making government accountable to the people have made a lasting contribution to our democracy. The American people owe Brian Lamb a debt of gratitude, and we wish him all the best in this new chapter of his remarkable career.

Mr. President, I voted for the Roberts amendment No. 1826 because we cannot make perfect the enemy of the good. Approving the Keystone XL pipeline and increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling are practical steps we should be taking to not only decrease our dependence on Middle East oil but help lower the price of oil in the future.

Unfortunately, in addition to these provisions, this amendment included several tax credit extensions that should not be extended. Tax credits for energy efficient appliances, alternative fuels, and alternative fuel vehicle refueling property should be eliminated permanently. The alternative fuel vehicle refueling property tax credit is particularly egregious. This credit would provide an additional subsidy to build ethanol blender pumps at private fueling stations. Taxpayers already gave over $20 billion to the ethanol industry through VEETC alone; they do not need to continue the support of this industry by financing its infrastructure build out.

Although amendment No. 1826 received my vote, I feel it necessary to reiterate my opposition to the extension of these tax credits. Alternatively, I support the principles behind amendment No. 1589 that seeks to eliminate targeted subsides and lower corporate tax rates.

Madam President, today I come to the floor to speak in support of Coburn amendment, No. 1738, which I cosponsor. This common sense amendment would require the Office of Management and Budget-- OMB--and the executive branch agencies to reduce at least $10 billion by eliminating, consolidating, or streamlining government programs and agencies with duplicative and overlapping missions.

Thankfully, the Government Accountability Office--GAO--has given Congress and the administration a blueprint to reduce duplication and eliminate failing programs by releasing two detailed reports that highlight 132 areas within the Federal Government that are duplicative and if consolidated could save billions. With our Nation facing a $15.4 trillion debt, eliminating inefficiency and waste in the Federal Government to save taxpayer dollars is absolutely imperative and the American people expect us to do so.

In the most recent report issued by GAO on February 28, 2012, they identified 32 areas of duplication, overlap and fragmentation throughout the Federal Government, as well as 19 additional areas of cost-saving and revenue-enhancement opportunities in Federal programs, agencies, offices and initiatives. Of the 32 areas highlighted in the report, GAO identifies 10 dealing specifically with the Department of Defense, which include Electronic Warfare programs, Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Efforts, Defense Language and Culture Training, Stabilization, Reconstruction, and Humanitarian Assistance Efforts, Health Research Funding, Military and Veterans Health Care, Information Technology Investment Management, Space Launch Contract Costs, and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education--STEM.

In addition to the 10 defense areas mentioned above, GAO also highlights 6 areas where the Defense Department could reduce its operating costs or increase revenue collections for the Treasury.

With new, emerging threats to national security arising every day, the funding needed to support major defense priorities is declining. For this reason, in my view, the Department must implement each of GAO's recommendations in this report. Also, implementing these recommendations may reduce the need for ``catastrophic'' defense cuts required under ``sequestration''--precipitated by Congress' failure to enact $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction under the Budget Control Act of 2011.

I intend to send a letter to Secretary of Defense Panetta asking him to tell me how the Department plans to address these vitally important recommendations. I will continue to monitor the Department's implementation efforts and will take necessary steps, including legislative action where appropriate, to ensure their implementation.

The Federal Government wastes billions a year on programs with duplicative and overlapping missions. Congress and the administration must ensure that the findings in the two GAO reports do not go to waste. Congress should insist that they are implemented to reduce spending and eliminate duplicative and failing programs. I urge my colleagues to support the Coburn's amendment No. 1738.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 1669, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak in morning business for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. President, after a year of bloodshed, the crisis in Syria has reached a decisive moment. It is estimated that more than 7,500 lives have been lost. The United Nations has declared that Syrian security forces are guilty of crimes against humanity, including the indiscriminate shelling of civilians, the execution of defectors, and the widespread torture of prisoners.

Bashar al-Asad is now doing to Homs what his father did to Hama. Aerial photographs procured by Human Rights Watch show a city that has been laid to waste by Asad's tanks and artillery. A British photographer who was wounded and evacuated from the city described it as ``a medieval siege and slaughter.'' The kinds of mass atrocities that NATO intervened in Libya to prevent in Benghazi are now a reality in Homs. Indeed, Syria today is the scene of some of the worst state- sponsored violence since Milosevic's war crimes in the Balkans or Russia's annihilation of the Chechen city of Grozny.

What is all the more astonishing is that Asad's killing spree has continued despite severe and escalating international pressure against him. His regime is almost completely isolated. It has been expelled from the Arab League, rebuked by the United Nations General Assembly, excoriated by the U.N. Human Rights Council, and abandoned by nearly every country that once maintained diplomatic relations with it. At the same time, Asad's regime is facing a punishing array of economic sanctions by the United States, the European Union, the Arab League, and others--measures that have targeted the assets of Asad and his henchman, cut off the Central Bank and other financial institutions, grounded Syria's cargo flights, and restricted the regime's ability to sell oil.

This has been an impressive international effort, and the administration deserves a lot of credit for helping to orchestrate it.

The problem is the bloodletting continues. Despite a year's worth of diplomacy backed by sanctions, Asad and his top lieutenants show no signs of giving up and taking the path into foreign exile. To the contrary, they appear to be accelerating their fight to the finish and they are doing so with the shameless support of foreign governments, especially in Russia, China, and Iran. A steady supply of weapons, ammunition, and other assistance is flowing to Asad from Moscow and Tehran. As the Washington Post reported yesterday, Iranian military and intelligence operatives are likely active in Syria, helping to direct and sharpen the regime's brutality. The Security Council is totally shut down as an avenue for increased pressure, and the recently convened Friends of Syria contact group, while a good step in principle, produced mostly rhetoric but precious little action when it met last month in Tunisia. Unfortunately, with each passing day, the international response to Asad's atrocities is being overtaken by events on the ground in Syria.

Some countries are finally beginning to acknowledge this reality as well as its implications. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are calling for arming opposition forces in Syria. The newly elected Kuwaiti Parliament has called on their government to do the same. Last week, the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, ADM James Stavridis, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that providing arms to opposition forces in Syria could help them shift the balance of power against Asad. Most importantly, Syrians themselves are increasingly calling for international military involvement. The Opposition Syrian National Council recently announced that it is establishing a military bureau to channel weapons and other assistance to the Free Syrian Army and armed groups inside the country. Other members of the Council are demanding a more robust intervention.

To be sure, there are legitimate questions about the efficacy of military operations in Syria and equally legitimate concerns about their risks and uncertainties. It is understandable that the administration is reluctant to move beyond diplomacy and sanctions. Unfortunately, this policy is increasingly disconnected from the dire conditions on the ground in Syria, which has become a full-blown state of armed conflict. In the face of this new reality, the administration's approach to Syria is starting to look more like a hope than a strategy. So, too, does their continued insistence that Asad's fall is ``inevitable.'' Tell that to the people of Homs. Tell that to the people of Idlib or Hama or the other cities that Asad's forces are now moving against. Nothing in this world is predetermined, and claims about the inevitability of events can often be a convenient way to abdicate responsibility.

But even if we do assume that Asad will ultimately fall, that may still take a long time. In recent testimony in the Armed Services Committee, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said if the status quo persists, Asad could hang on for months, probably longer. And that was before Homs fell. So to be clear, even under the best-case scenario for the current policy, the cost of success will likely be months of continued bloodshed and thousands of additional lives lost. Is this morally acceptable to us? I believe it should not be.

In addition to the moral and humanitarian interests at stake in Syria, what is just as compelling, if not more so, are the strategic and geopolitical interests. Put simply, the United States has a clear national security interest in stopping the violence in Syria and forcing Asad to leave power. In this way, Syria is very different than Libya. The stakes are far higher, both for America and some of our closest allies.

This regime in Syria serves as a main forward operating base of the Iranian regime in the heart of the Arab world. It has supported Palestinian terrorist groups and funneled arms of all kinds, including tens of thousands of rockets, to Hezbollah in Lebanon. It remains a committed enemy of Israel. It has large stockpiles of chemical weapons and materials and has sought to develop a nuclear weapons capability. It was the primary gateway for the countless foreign fighters who infiltrated Iraq and killed American troops. Asad and his lieutenants have the blood of hundreds of Americans on their hands. Many in Washington fear that what comes after Asad might be worse. How could it be any worse than this?

The end of the Asad regime would sever Hezbollah's lifeline to Iran, eliminate a longstanding threat to Israel, bolster Lebanon's sovereignty and independence, and inflict a strategic defeat on the Iranian regime. It would be a geopolitical success of the first order. More than all of the compelling moral and humanitarian reasons, this is why Asad cannot be allowed to succeed and remain in power. We have a clear national security interest in his defeat, and that alone should incline us to tolerate a large degree of risk in order to see that this goal is achieved.

Increasingly, the question for U.S. policy is not whether foreign forces will intervene militarily in Syria. We can be confident that Syria's neighbors will do so eventually if they have not already. Some kind of intervention will happen with or without us. So the real question for U.S. policy is whether we will participate in this next phase of the conflict in Syria and thereby increase our ability to shape an outcome that is beneficial to the Syrian people and to us. I believe we must.

The President has characterized the prevention of mass atrocities as ``a core national security interest.'' He has made it the objective of the United States that the killing in Syria must stop, that Asad must go. He has committed the prestige and credibility of our Nation to that goal, and it is the right goal. However, it is not clear that the present policy can succeed. If Asad manages to cling to power--or even if he manages to sustain the slaughter for months to come--with all the human and geopolitical costs that entails, it would be a strategic and moral defeat for the United States. We cannot--we must not--allow this to happen.

For this reason, the time has come for a new policy. As we continue to isolate Asad diplomatically and economically, we should work with our closest friends and allies to support opposition groups inside Syria, both political and military, to help them organize themselves into a more cohesive and effective force that can put an end to the bloodshed and force Asad and his loyalists to leave power. Rather than closing off the prospects for some kind of negotiated transition that is acceptable to the Syrian opposition, foreign military intervention is now the necessary factor to reinforce this option. Asad needs to know that he will not win.

What opposition groups in Syria need most urgently is relief from Asad's tank and artillery sieges in the many cities that are still contested. Homs is lost for now, but Idlib and Hama and Qusayr and Deraa and other cities in Syria could still be saved. But time is running out. Asad's forces are on the march. Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary, but at this late hour that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. The only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power.

Therefore, at the request of the Syrian National Council, the Free Syrian Army, and local coordinating committees inside the country, the United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through air strikes on Asad's forces. To be clear, this will require the United States to suppress enemy air defenses in at least part of the country. The ultimate goal of air strikes should be to establish and defend safe havens in Syria, especially in the north, in which opposition forces can organize and plan their political and military activities against Asad. These safe havens could serve as platforms for the delivery of humanitarian and military assistance, including weapons and ammunition, body armor, and other personal protective equipment, tactical intelligence, secure communications equipment, food and water, and medical supplies. These safe havens could also help the Free Syrian Army and other armed groups in Syria train and organize themselves into more cohesive and effective military forces, likely with the assistance of foreign partners.

The benefit for the United States in helping to lead this effort directly is that it would allow us to better empower those Syrian groups that share our interests--those groups that reject al-Qaida and the Iranian regime and commit to the goal of an inclusive democratic transition as called for by the Syrian National Council. If we stand on the sidelines, others will pick winners, and this will not always to be to our liking or in our interest. This does not mean the United States should go it alone. I repeat: This does not mean that the United States should go it alone. We should not. We should seek the active involvement of key Arab partners such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Qatar, and willing allies in the EU and NATO, the most important of which in this case is Turkey.

There will be no U.N. Security Council mandate for such an operation. Russia and China took that option off the table long ago. But let's not forget: NATO took military action to save Kosovo in 1999 without formal U.N. authorization. There is no reason why the

Arab League or NATO or a leading coalition within the Friends of Syria contact group, or all of them speaking in unison, could not provide a similar international mandate for military measures to save Syria today.

Could such a mandate be gotten? I believe it could. Foreign capitals across the world are looking to the United States to lead, especially now that the situation in Syria has become an armed conflict. But what they see is an administration still hedging its bets--on the one hand insisting that Asad's fall is inevitable but, on the other, unwilling even to threaten more assertive actions that could make it so.

The rhetoric out of NATO has been much more self-defeating. Far from making it clear to Asad that all options are on the table, key alliance leaders are going out of their way to publicly take options off the table. Last week, NATO Secretary General Rasmussen said that the alliance has not even discussed the possibility of NATO action in Syria, saying: ``I don't envision such a role for the alliance.'' The following day, the Supreme Allied Commander, ADM James Stavridis, testified in the Senate Armed Services Committee that NATO has done no contingency planning--none--for potential military operations in Syria.

That is not how NATO approached Bosnia or Kosovo or Libya. Is it now the policy of NATO--or the United States, for that matter--to tell the perpetrators of mass atrocities in Syria or elsewhere that they can go on killing innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands and the greatest alliance in history will not even bother to conduct any planning about how we might stop them? Is that NATO's policy now? Is that our policy? Because that is the practical effect of this kind of rhetoric. It gives Asad and his foreign allies a green light for greater brutality.

Not surprisingly, many countries, especially Syria's neighbors, are also hedging their bets on the outcome in Syria. They think Asad will go, but they are not yet prepared to put all their chips on that bet-- even less so now that Asad's forces have broken Homs and seem to be gaining momentum.

There is only one nation--there is only one nation--that can alter this dynamic, and that is the United States of America. The President must state unequivocally that under no circumstances will Asad be allowed to finish what he has started; that there is no future in which Asad and his lieutenants will remain in control of Syria; and that the United States is prepared to use the full weight of our air power to make it so. It is only when we have clearly and completely committed ourselves that we can expect other nations to do the same. Only then would we see what is really possible in winning international support to stop the killing in Syria.

Are there dangers and risks and uncertainties in this approach? Absolutely. There are no ideal options in Syria. All of them contain significant risk. Many people will be quick to raise concerns about the course of action I am proposing. Many of these concerns have merit but none so much that they should keep us from acting.

For example, we continue to hear it said that we should not assist the opposition in Syria militarily because we do not know who these people are. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated this argument just last week, adding that we could end up helping al-Qaida or Hamas. It is possible that the administration does not know much about the armed opposition in Syria, but how much effort have they really made to find out, to meet and engage these people directly? Not much, it appears. Instead, much of the best information we have about the armed resistance in Syria is thanks to courageous journalists, some of whom have given their lives to tell the story of the Syrian people.

One of those journalists is a reporter working for Al-Jazeera named Nir Rosen, who spent months in the country, including much time with the armed opposition. Here is how he described them recently:

The regime and its supporters describe the opposition,

especially the armed opposition, as Salafis, Jihadists,

Muslim Brotherhood supporters, al-Qaeda and terrorists. This

is not true, but it's worth noting that all the fighters I

met . . . were Sunni Muslims, and most were pious. They fight

for a multitude of reasons: for their friends, for their

neighborhoods, for their villages, for their province, for

revenge, for self-defense, for dignity, for their brethren in

other parts of the country who are also fighting. They do not

read religious literature or listen to sermons. Their views

on Islam are consistent with the general attitudes of Syrian

Sunni society, which is conservative and religious.

Because there are many small groups in the armed

opposition, it is difficult to describe their ideology in

general terms. The Salafi and Muslim Brotherhood ideologies

are not important in Syria and do not play a significant role

in the revolution. But most Syrian Sunnis taking part in the

uprising are themselves devout.

He could just as well have been describing average citizens in Egypt or Libya or Tunisia or other nations in the region. So we should be a little more careful before we embrace the Asad regime's propaganda about the opposition in Syria. We certainly should not let these misconceptions cause us to keep the armed resistance in Syria at arm's length because that is just self-defeating. And I can assure you that al-Qaida is not pursuing the same policy. They are eager to try to hijack the Syrian revolution, just as they have tried to hijack the Arab spring movements in Egypt and Tunisia and Libya and elsewhere. They are trying, but so far they are failing. The people of these countries are broadly rejecting everything al-Qaida stands for. They are not eager to trade secular tyranny for theocratic tyranny.

The other reason al-Qaida is failing in Tunisia and Egypt and Libya is because the community of nations--especially the United States--has supported them. We are giving them a better alternative. The surest way for al-Qaida to gain a foothold in Syria is for us to turn our backs on these brave Syrians who are fighting to defend themselves. After all, Sunni Iraqis were willing to ally with al-Qaida when they felt desperate enough, but when America gave them a better alternative, they turned their guns on al-Qaida. Why should it be different in Syria?

Another objection to providing military assistance to the Syrian opposition is that the conflict has become a sectarian civil war and our intervention would enable the Sunni majority to take a bloody and indiscriminate revenge against the Alawite minority. This is a serious and legitimate concern, and it is only growing worse the longer the conflict goes on. As we saw in Iraq or Lebanon before it, time favors the hard-liners in a conflict such as this. The suffering of Sunnis at the hands of Asad only stokes the temptation for revenge, which in turn only deepens fears among the Alawites and strengthens their incentive to keep fighting. For this reason alone, it is all the more compelling to find a way to end the bloodshed as soon as possible.

Furthermore, the risks of sectarian conflict will exist in Syria whether or not we get more involved. And we will at least have some ability to try to mitigate these risks if we work to assist the armed opposition now. That will at least help us to know them better and to establish some trust and exercise some influence with them, because we took their side when they needed it most. We should not overstate the potential influence we could gain with opposition groups inside Syria, but it will only diminish the longer we wait to offer them meaningful support. And what we can say for certain is we will have no influence whatsoever with these people if they feel we abandoned them. This is a real moral dilemma, but we cannot allow the opposition in Syria to be crushed at present while we worry about the future.

We also hear it said, including by the administration, that we should not contribute to the militarization of the conflict. If only Russia and Iran shared that sentiment. Instead, they are shamelessly fueling Asad's killing machine. We need to deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it to be. And the reality in Syria today is largely a one-sided fight where the aggressors are not lacking for military means and zeal. Indeed, Asad appears to be fully committed to crushing the opposition at all costs. Iran and Russia appear to be fully committed to helping him do it.

The many Syrians who have taken up arms to defend themselves and their communities appear to be fully committed to acquiring the necessary weapons to resist Asad, and leading

Arab States appear increasingly committed to providing those weapons. The only ones who seem overly concerned about a militarization of the conflict is the United States and some of its allies. The time has come to ask a different question: Whom do we want to win in Syria--our friends or our enemies?

There are always plenty of reasons not to do something, and we can list them clearly in the case of Syria. We know the opposition is divided. We know the armed resistance inside the country lacks cohesion or command and control. We know some elements of the opposition may sympathize with violent extremist ideologies or harbor dark thoughts of sectarian revenge. We know many of Syria's immediate neighbors remain cautious about taking overly provocative actions that could undermine Asad. And we know the American people are weary of conflict-- justifiably so--and we would rather focus on domestic problems.

These are realities. But while we are compelled to acknowledge them, we are not condemned to accept them forever. With resolve, principled leadership, and wise policy, we can shape better realities. That is what the Syrian people have done.

By no rational calculation should this uprising against Asad still be going on. The Syrian people are outmatched. They are outgunned. They are lacking for food and water and other basic needs. They are confronting a regime with limitless disregard for human dignity and capacity for sheer savagery. For an entire year, the Syrian people have faced death and those unspeakable things worse than death, and they still have not given up. Still they take to the streets to protest peacefully for justice, still they carry on their fight, and they do so on behalf of many of the same universal values we share and many of the same interests as well. These people are our allies. They want many of the same things we do. They have expanded the boundaries of what everyone thought was possible in Syria. They have earned our respect, and now they need our support to finish what they started. The Syrian people deserve to succeed, and shame on us if we fail to help them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for an additional 10 minutes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Graham, and the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven.

Madam President, I, along with Senators Graham, Hoeven, Blumenthal, and Sessions, had a very interesting trip last week, where we visited various countries and learned a lot at each one. The reason we are here on the floor today is to talk a bit about the recent release--thank God--of Americans who were in the American Embassy and were subject to trial and prosecution by the Egyptian Government. This was a humanitarian issue from the standpoint that no American citizen should be treated that way, especially by an ally, but it was also a larger issue in that the outcome could have significantly impacted relations between our country and Egypt.

Egypt, as my friend from South Carolina well knows, is the heart and soul of the Arab world. What happens in Egypt affects the entire Arab world. Our relationship with Egypt is one that is vital not just for Egypt but our national security interests are that the region remain peaceful and that there not be conflict and abrogation of the treaty that was concluded between Egypt and Israel as a result of the Camp David agreements.

I think it is important to recognize that Egypt is in a bit of turmoil. These young people, from the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, and Freedom House, unfortunately, had to go to our embassy because they were going to be prosecuted under then-Egyptian law.

I wish to begin by saying that our Ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, may be one of the finest diplomats this Nation has produced. The more the Senator from South Carolina and I travel, and the more we meet with and have discussions with representatives at our U.S. Embassies, we realize these people are enormously good, and we are proud they represent the United States, particularly Anne Patterson.

She has worked tirelessly since this whole crisis began. I believe the majority of the credit for this successful outcome, as far as our American citizens are concerned, can be directly attributed to her dedication, her hard work, and her tireless efforts day and night on behalf of these young people. So we are extremely proud of her.

I wish to ask my friend from South Carolina what he thinks were the reasons why the Egyptian Government changed what they had previously said would be a judicial prosecution of these American citizens to allowing them to leave Egypt and return to the United States, as they are now on their way?

As the Senator from South Carolina knows, there was a pending amendment to cut off the $1.3 billion. I would emphasize to my colleagues that $1.3 billion was a commitment that was made at the time of the Camp David agreement which led to a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, which, if that amendment had been enacted, I am confident would have been cause for the Egyptians to abrogate the peace treaty with Israel. The consequences of all that I am not sure of.

I wish to emphasize to my friend--and I see Senator Hoeven here--we did have meetings with the speaker of their Parliament and his colleagues. We did have meetings with the chairman of their committee on human rights, who happens to be the nephew of Anwar Sadat, one of the signatories to the Camp David agreement--the signatory, along with Menachem Begin. We did meet with the Muslim Brotherhood, who then agreed with us that NGOs are important and the law needed to be revised. Of course, we met with Marshal Tantawi, the head of the interim military government.

What confused us a bit at first, I ask my colleague from North Dakota, was that everybody said: We are with you. Yet, they were gridlocked. In the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who had been over there, they were paralyzed. It seemed to me that the statement of the Muslim Brotherhood--who all of us I know have concerns about, but it was the statement of the Muslim Brotherhood supporting NGOs, supporting revision of the Mubarak law that seemed to be a major factor in unsticking what had clearly been a situation which day by day grew more and more of a crisis. I would ask my friend from North Dakota if he had that same impression.

I agree with my colleague from South Carolina. Senator Blumenthal was very important, one, for bipartisanship, but also his background as a prosecutor.

At one point in all of this back and forth, one of the lawyers--who will be unnamed--said to Senator Blumenthal that: Well, we probably have to go along with the advice of the lawyers. And Senator Blumenthal, in a very succinct way, said: Well, maybe it is time to fire the lawyers.

So I want to thank Senator Blumenthal for his involvement and the expertise and knowledge that he brought to this whole scenario because of his background as a prosecutor and attorney general of his State.

I guess I wonder, from my friend from Connecticut, if he believes that this kind of thing is something we should be emphasizing, these NGOs, so maybe we can prevent this in the future.

For example, when we visited Tunisia, the Tunisians have enacted a law that encourages the participation of these dedicated men and women who come and live and work in their country and help them build democracy. That was what was so--not enraging, but certainly it was so frustrating to hear these people who are only trying to build democracy. They weren't there to make money. They weren't contractors. They weren't anybody who was in business. They were just trying to help them build democracy, and they end up in the situation that they were in--which caused us from time to time to maybe grit our teeth, I would ask my friend from Connecticut.

Didn't my friend from Connecticut find it striking that these new parliamentarians were most eager to have interparliamentary association with us? They wanted to come to the United States to have further relations between the two elected bodies. I was very impressed by that.

Very briefly, before I turn to my other two colleagues, the day we arrived in Egypt there was a suppliers conference, companies and corporations from all over the world, ranging from companies such as General Electric, Boeing--the major corporations. It is very clear that the one thing they need is jobs--jobs and jobs and jobs. Their tourism has collapsed. Unless their economy improves, I think they are going to face some very significant challenges.

At least I was very happy to see a lot of American participation in that gathering. I think they said there were like 600 people in that room, all of them representing various businesses in the United States. And of course they are experiencing a hard currency crunch right now that is very significant.

I thank my colleagues and dear friends. It was an exciting trip and a very interesting one. I would just like to say that when you go to a country such as Libya and see the challenges they have with the militias and yet the dedication of their leadership toward a free and democratic country; when you go into Libya, where both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister both attended school or were professors at the University of Alabama, it really does show the incredible effect of an education in the United States of America.

Extremist, but anyway----

I note the presence of my colleague from Vermont. I once again thank my colleague. Every once in a while we can think we did a little bit of good around the world, and thanks to the five of us, I think we really did. I think we can be proud.

We are also proud that we represent, still, in their view and our view, the greatest Nation in the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I recently had the privilege of speaking at an event sponsored by the Center for the National Interest which honored our colleague from Michigan, Senator Carl Levin, with their 2012 Distinguished Service Award. In addition to being my colleague, I am proud to call Carl Levin a dear friend, and I ask unanimous consent that my remarks honoring Senator Levin be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information and Technology Act, also known as the SECURE IT Act. I am joined today by Senator Hutchison, Senator Chambliss, Senator Grassley, Senator Murkowski, Senator Coats, Senator Burr, and Senator Johnson of Wisconsin. My colleagues and I believe that passage of this act would be a significant step towards improving our Nation's cyber defenses.

It is clear to most policy makers that the Internet has transformed nearly all aspects of our lives by breaking down barriers and increasing information efficiencies. Whether you are a student searching for an article to complete a homework assignment or a fireman trying to remotely determine the landscape of a forest to safely extinguish a fire, the Internet has improved our lives because it has so greatly transformed how and when we are able to access information.

While progress is clear, not a week goes by without fresh media reports of a major compromise of a cyber network in the United States. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office stated that cyber attacks against the United States are up 650 percent over the last 5 years, and according to one leading cybersecurity firm, the annual cost of cyber crime itself is nearly $388 billion. That cost is close to the sum of all of the profits of the top 75 Fortune 500 firms for 2011. My friends, if the top 75 American businesses lost all of their profits in one year, we would be working night and day to solve the problem.

Most of us don't need an analogy like that to appreciate the need to improve the current state of cybersecurity in this country. But the reality is that advancing much needed legislation has been extremely difficult. I will be the first to admit there are honest differences within the cybersecurity debate. However, over the course of the last few years, several cybersecurity solutions have been brought forth that I believe can be advanced and offer insight as to where progress can be achieved. These solutions are not insignificant and their passage would do plenty to improve our country's cybersecurity defenses. I believe that inaction is no longer an option. The stakes are too high and the threat is too real.

The SECURE IT Act is a serious response to the growing cyber threat facing our country. Our bill seeks to utilize the world-class engineers employed by our private sector, not compliance attorneys in billable by the hour law firms. This is why a primary objective of our bill is to enter into a cooperative information sharing relationship with the private sector, rather than an adversarial one rooted in prescriptive Federal regulations used to dictate technological solutions to industry.

The centerpiece of the SECURE IT Act is a legal framework to provide for voluntary information sharing. Our bill provides specific authorities relating to the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information among private entities, between a private entity and a non- federal government agency such as a local government, and between any entity and a pre-existing Federal cybersecurity center. In setting forth our information sharing framework, we do not create any new bureaucracy.

Further, the SECURE IT Act includes no government monitoring, no government take-overs of the Internet, and no government intrusions. There are plenty of laws that deal with those issues--this bill is not one of them. The goal of the information sharing title is to remove the legal hurdles which prevent critical information from being shared with those who need it most.

In drafting the information sharing title of our bill, my colleagues and I were very sensitive to the issue of privacy and we worked very hard to put forth understandable privacy protections. First, we limit the type of information involved in information sharing

to ``cyber threat information'' as it is narrowly defined in the bill. There are no legal protections for entities using, receiving, or sharing information that falls outside that narrow ``cyber threat information'' definition. Second, we include techniques like information anonymizing and specifically state that entities can restrict the further dissemination of shared information. Additionally, after the first year, and then every other year, we will receive reports from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board which will tell us how these authorities are being implemented. We take the issue of privacy very seriously.

In addition to information sharing, the SECURE IT Act requires the Federal Government to improve its own cybersecurity by reforming the Federal Information Security Management Act--the law that governs federal networks. These updates are meant to ensure that the Federal Government transitions from paper-based reporting on network security to real-time monitoring--a huge step in federal cybersecurity which will go a long way to improve how the government addresses its own cyber threats. This transition from a checklist approach to continuous monitoring will not happen without an associated cost. However, we believe our approach to this necessary improvement is the most fiscally responsible because we require agencies to meet these requirements by using existing budgets, rather than by authorizing new federal spending.

We are all aware that federal government also plays a critical role in cybersecurity research. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Department of Energy laboratories and the National Science Foundation are all world-class leaders in research that is essential to understanding how to best protect our cyber country's infrastructure. This work serves an important purpose and should be a Federal priority even in a time of significant budget constraints. However, the significance of these programs does not provide us with an excuse to authorize new spending or establish new programs. The SECURE IT Act ignores this temptation and does not authorize new spending or programs.

Finally, our cybersecurity bill updates our nation's criminal laws to account for new cyber crimes and assists the Department of Justice to prosecute cyber criminals.

In sum, it is our belief that the provisions included in the SECURE IT Act will dramatically improve cybersecurity in this country. More importantly, the approach taken in the SECURE IT Act has a real chance of being enacted into law this year. This is real progress that will impact nearly all Americans. After all, we are all in this fight together, and as we search for solutions, our first goal should be to move forward together.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information and Technology Act, also known as the SECURE IT Act. I am joined today by Senator Hutchison, Senator Chambliss, Senator Grassley, Senator Murkowski, Senator Coats, Senator Burr, and Senator Johnson of Wisconsin. My colleagues and I believe that passage of this act would be a significant step towards improving our Nation's cyber defenses.

It is clear to most policy makers that the Internet has transformed nearly all aspects of our lives by breaking down barriers and increasing information efficiencies. Whether you are a student searching for an article to complete a homework assignment or a fireman trying to remotely determine the landscape of a forest to safely extinguish a fire, the Internet has improved our lives because it has so greatly transformed how and when we are able to access information.

While progress is clear, not a week goes by without fresh media reports of a major compromise of a cyber network in the United States. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office stated that cyber attacks against the United States are up 650 percent over the last 5 years, and according to one leading cybersecurity firm, the annual cost of cyber crime itself is nearly $388 billion. That cost is close to the sum of all of the profits of the top 75 Fortune 500 firms for 2011. My friends, if the top 75 American businesses lost all of their profits in one year, we would be working night and day to solve the problem.

Most of us don't need an analogy like that to appreciate the need to improve the current state of cybersecurity in this country. But the reality is that advancing much needed legislation has been extremely difficult. I will be the first to admit there are honest differences within the cybersecurity debate. However, over the course of the last few years, several cybersecurity solutions have been brought forth that I believe can be advanced and offer insight as to where progress can be achieved. These solutions are not insignificant and their passage would do plenty to improve our country's cybersecurity defenses. I believe that inaction is no longer an option. The stakes are too high and the threat is too real.

The SECURE IT Act is a serious response to the growing cyber threat facing our country. Our bill seeks to utilize the world-class engineers employed by our private sector, not compliance attorneys in billable by the hour law firms. This is why a primary objective of our bill is to enter into a cooperative information sharing relationship with the private sector, rather than an adversarial one rooted in prescriptive Federal regulations used to dictate technological solutions to industry.

The centerpiece of the SECURE IT Act is a legal framework to provide for voluntary information sharing. Our bill provides specific authorities relating to the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information among private entities, between a private entity and a non- federal government agency such as a local government, and between any entity and a pre-existing Federal cybersecurity center. In setting forth our information sharing framework, we do not create any new bureaucracy.

Further, the SECURE IT Act includes no government monitoring, no government take-overs of the Internet, and no government intrusions. There are plenty of laws that deal with those issues--this bill is not one of them. The goal of the information sharing title is to remove the legal hurdles which prevent critical information from being shared with those who need it most.

In drafting the information sharing title of our bill, my colleagues and I were very sensitive to the issue of privacy and we worked very hard to put forth understandable privacy protections. First, we limit the type of information involved in information sharing

to ``cyber threat information'' as it is narrowly defined in the bill. There are no legal protections for entities using, receiving, or sharing information that falls outside that narrow ``cyber threat information'' definition. Second, we include techniques like information anonymizing and specifically state that entities can restrict the further dissemination of shared information. Additionally, after the first year, and then every other year, we will receive reports from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board which will tell us how these authorities are being implemented. We take the issue of privacy very seriously.

In addition to information sharing, the SECURE IT Act requires the Federal Government to improve its own cybersecurity by reforming the Federal Information Security Management Act--the law that governs federal networks. These updates are meant to ensure that the Federal Government transitions from paper-based reporting on network security to real-time monitoring--a huge step in federal cybersecurity which will go a long way to improve how the government addresses its own cyber threats. This transition from a checklist approach to continuous monitoring will not happen without an associated cost. However, we believe our approach to this necessary improvement is the most fiscally responsible because we require agencies to meet these requirements by using existing budgets, rather than by authorizing new federal spending.

We are all aware that federal government also plays a critical role in cybersecurity research. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Department of Energy laboratories and the National Science Foundation are all world-class leaders in research that is essential to understanding how to best protect our cyber country's infrastructure. This work serves an important purpose and should be a Federal priority even in a time of significant budget constraints. However, the significance of these programs does not provide us with an excuse to authorize new spending or establish new programs. The SECURE IT Act ignores this temptation and does not authorize new spending or programs.

Finally, our cybersecurity bill updates our nation's criminal laws to account for new cyber crimes and assists the Department of Justice to prosecute cyber criminals.

In sum, it is our belief that the provisions included in the SECURE IT Act will dramatically improve cybersecurity in this country. More importantly, the approach taken in the SECURE IT Act has a real chance of being enacted into law this year. This is real progress that will impact nearly all Americans. After all, we are all in this fight together, and as we search for solutions, our first goal should be to move forward together.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, it is my distinct privilege to join with my beloved friend Jon Kyl to speak in honor of the centennial anniversary of Arizona statehood. One hundred years ago, on February 14, 1912, the State of Arizona was officially admitted to the Union, effectively completing the contiguous lower 48 States. Americans today recognize Arizona as the thriving center of the Sunbelt, known for its ability to attract businesses, manufacturing, and tourists from around the world. The Valley of the Sun alone supports about 4 million people, and our State capital--Phoenix--is the Nation's sixth largest city.

Compared to its humble beginnings, Arizona has enjoyed tremendous growth and productivity, but this was not always so. Arizona's history began over 10,000 years ago with the migration of early Native American tribes to the region. For centuries, the Anasazi, Hohokam, and other peoples flourished in the forested highlands and Sonoran Desert lowlands. Many of the Indian tribes in Arizona today are the proud descendants of those ancient peoples.

It was not until 1528, with the arrival of Spanish missionaries and conquistadors in the towns of Tubac and Tucson, that the land and people were first reshaped. Spanish colonization eventually gave way to Mexican independence in 1821.

In 1848 the Mexican-American War concluded, with Mexico ceding much of Arizona to the United States.

In 1853 President Franklin Pierce saw an opportunity to build a transcontinental railroad connecting the South with southern California and purchased the remaining bottom half of the Arizona Territory from Mexico for $10 million--what today would be the equivalent of $244 million. It was around this time that American pioneers began to settle the towns of Prescott, Flagstaff, picturesque Sedona and Yuma, the gateway to gold-rich California.

During the Civil War, Arizona became a short-lived strategic interest

for the Confederacy. The war's western-most battle was fought in Arizona at Picacho Peak, about 50 miles north of Tucson. It reportedly lasted 90 minutes and involved about 25 solders.

In the years that followed, cattlemen and mining speculators flocked to develop Arizona's natural resources in towns such as Tombstone, Bisbee, Show Low, and St. John's, the birthplace of our late and beloved Morris Udall. The boundaries of the State soon began to take shape thanks to explorers such as John Wesley Powell, whose famous 3- month expedition down the mighty Colorado charted the first known passage through the Grand Canyon.

Efforts in Congress to pass statehood began around the turn of the 20th century. One proposal sought to combine the territories of Arizona and New Mexico into one massive State. But Arizona settlers would have none of it, and it is unlikely that the people of New Mexico were all too excited about the plan either.

At the time, many outsiders did not fully appreciate Arizona's untapped potential. They considered it nothing more than a desert wasteland, economically desolate and virtually uninhabitable. One of Arizona's first territorial representatives, Henry Ashurst, is known to have risen in Congress to argue that ``all that Arizona needs to flourish is good people and water,'' to which an east cost Member supposedly retorted, ``You could say the same about hell.''

Arizonans eventually succeeded in convincing Congress to grant statehood. This was partially due to the construction of the Theodore Roosevelt Dam in 1903, as part of the Salt River project in Phoenix, one of the Nation's first Federal reclamation projects. The Roosevelt Dam channeled lifegiving water from the Salt River into a series of irrigation canals that overlay a canal network dug by the Hohokam Indians more than 1,000 years prior. Fueled by irrigation water and hydroelectric power, the small community of Phoenix, which started as a cavalry hay camp at Fort McDowell, began its rise to national prominence.

My predecessor in the Senate, the late Senator Barry Goldwater, is among Arizona's most celebrated statesmen, having served five terms in this body. He was born in Phoenix when Arizona was still a territory and witnessed remarkable changes to the Grand Canyon State throughout his lifetime.

The Smithsonian magazine recently republished an op-ed Goldwater wrote in 1962 called ``Arizona's Next Fifty years'' where he imagines what Arizona would look like by 2012. Keep in mind that Arizona had barely 1 million people living across the entire State in the 1960s. Modern air-conditioning technology was relatively new, and the 1,500 miles of interstate crisscrossing the State today was still on the drawing board. Yet Goldwater correctly predicted a rapid population growth, comparing Phoenix to other major U.S. cities. I would like to share some of his predictions. He wrote:

It will be the deserts that will support the majority of

the new homes. Phoenix will have a population of about three

million and Tucson will grow to about one and one-half

million. Phoenix and Tucson will remain the two largest

cities in the state, with Phoenix being either the fourth or

sixth largest city in the United States. The growth of

Glendale, Peoria and Avondale will parallel that of Phoenix

proper, so that 50 years from now, all of these cities will

be contiguous with each other and with Phoenix, and will form

a city complex not unlike the present city of Los Angeles.

Anyone who has flown into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport can see from the sky, day or night, the infinite grid-like layout of the metro Phoenix area. Senator Goldwater understood that this kind of development would fundamentally alter how Arizonans relate to the desert, writing:

The man of 2012 would not be able to walk from his doorstep

into this pastel paradise with its saguaro, the mesquite, the

leap of a jackrabbit . . . or the smell of freshly wet

greasewood, because people will have transgressed on the

desert for homesites to accommodate a population of slightly

over 10 million people. The forests will be protected, as

well as our parks and monuments. But even they will have as

neighbors the people who today enjoy hardships to visit them.

Despite the challenges of increased demand on our natural resources, Senator Goldwater correctly believed that the State would mature into a modern, industrious economy with global connections. He said:

Arizona's principal economic growth will be in the

industrial field, with emphasis being on items of a

technological nature. It will not be many years before

industry will become an important part of the economies of

most Arizona cities, whereas today it is more or less

confined to a few. Arizona will continue to be the haven for

people who seek an outlet for initiative and a reward for

work. The frontier challenges will exist then as they do

today, for man's progress never stops unless man stops it.

Fortunately for our State, our men have always and will

always want to go forward, not backward.

So what is Arizona today? Arizona's open skies and fair climate offer the U.S. military an ideal training environment for our soldiers and high-tech combat systems. Luke Air Force Base outside of Phoenix will be home to the F-35 fighter jet, the most advanced fighter in the world. The U.S. Army Intelligence Center is located at Fort Huachuca in southern Arizona, where UAV training serves a unique and irreplaceable national security mission. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson, the Nation's premier A-10 Warthog base, hosts an array of special operations aircraft and will hopefully continue to grow in support of our military's drone fleet. Across the highway, Arizonans in the Air National Guard fly the newest F-16s to train foreign pilots from over 20 countries, and virtually every Marine Corps fixed-wing squadron that participated in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm underwent predeployment training at Yuma Marine Corps Station. Arizona is also home to nearly 600,000 veterans, many of whom have returned to their families and loved ones from Iraq and Afghanistan.

More copper is mined in Arizona than all of the other States combined, and the Morenci Mine is the largest copper producer in all of North America.

Two of the country's largest manmade lakes are in Arizona, Lake Powell and Lake Mead--the result of Hoover Dam--which supply drinking water to over 25 million people in Arizona, Nevada, and California.

Yuma, AZ, an agricultural powerhouse, produces about 90 percent of the country's winter vegetables. The lettuce in your salad this month almost certainly came from Arizona.

We operate the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, located about 55 miles west of Phoenix, which generates more electricity than any other powerplant in the Nation.

It is home to three major State universities: Arizona State University, the University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University, with an undergraduate and graduate population of over 130,000.

Arizona is a leader in manufacturing information, medical, and defense technologies. We are headquarters to TGen, the Translational Genomics Research Institute, which conducts cutting-edge genetic research with the goal of curing Alzheimer's, autism, Parkinson's, and numerous forms of cancer.

We support critical scientific endeavors to discover our place in the universe: Arizona's unique landscapes, such as Meteor Crater and the Painted Desert, once played a key role in the NASA Apollo training missions. The world's largest solar telescope is located at Kitt Peak National Observatory in Sells, AZ. The University of Arizona is actively involved in the Cassini, Mars Lander, and Mars Rover missions, as well as NASA's Osiris-Rex mission, which will be the first spacecraft to land on an asteroid and return a sample to Earth.

It is also believed that the chimichanga has its origins in Arizona, although its exact hometown is still a matter of vigorous historical debate among locals.

I am immensely proud of Arizona's rich history, and I am humbled to represent a State that has earned a special place in the American consciousness. Even when I travel overseas, it is seldom I meet an individual who doesn't know where the Grand Canyon is or isn't captivated by the tales of the Old West or doesn't admire the rugged individualism of Arizona's frontiersmen. I cannot presume to exercise the kind of predictive abilities that Senator Goldwater displayed in his article. All I can say is that Arizona's future is perhaps best prophesized by reflecting on our legacy--judging our achievements against our intrepid beginnings. For as

long as Arizona stays true to the pioneer spirit, I believe her best days are yet to come.

If I might ask the indulgence to read a short piece that I put in a forward to a book by Lisa Schnebly Heidinger, ``Arizona: 100 Years Grand,'' the official book of Arizona's Centennial:

Near the end of his life, Barry Goldwater tried to describe

to an interviewer his affection for Arizona. He started to

identify some of the many natural wonders so beloved by

Arizonans when he became emotional. `Arizona,' he proclaimed,

`is 113,400 square miles of heaven that God cut out.'

Fighting back tears, and unable to continue at length, he

managed only to add, `I love it so much.'

For much of my life I had been rootless. My father was a

naval officer and my childhood was an itinerant one as we

moved from one base to another more times than I can

enumerate. Following in his footsteps, I, too, made my home

in the United States Navy, and the only place I lived for

more than a year or two was an unexpectedly lengthy stay in a

foreign country that would not let me leave and would have

preferred I had never come.

Except for that period of involuntary residence, I had

always lived my life on the move, part of a tradition that

compensated me in other ways for the hometown it denied me. I

had no connection to one place; no safe harbor where I could

rest without care. Landscapes and characters all passed too

quickly to form the attachments of shared history and love

that calm your heart when age finally cages your

restlessness.

I was nearly forty-five years old before I could claim a

hometown. My ambitions brought me to Arizona, and my work

keeps me away from here for more than half my time. But

Arizona has given me a home, and in the thirty years that

have passed since I moved here, it has worked its magic on me

and enchanted me and claimed me.

In those thirty years I've been to almost every community

that Arizonans carved from the wilderness and made thrive:

places that have never stopped growing; and places where

opportunities were exhausted and were abandoned to history;

and places that rose and declined and were re-imagined and

made to prosper again by the hard working, self starting

dreamers Arizona attracts in such large numbers. I've

marveled at the resourcefulness and vision of generations of

Arizonans in Yuma and Page, Jerome and Kingman, Bisbee and

Flagstaff, who knew success and failure, who struggled,

achieved, lost and struggled again to build from their

freedom and opportunities in the challenging and beautiful

places that had won their hearts, strong, prospering and

decent communities.

At the end of every election, I've stood on the courthouse

steps in Prescott, our old territorial capital, and thought

of the pioneering families whose names still resonate in

contemporary public affairs like Udall and Goldwater. I look

at the Bucky O'Neill monument, that memorial to the Rough

Riders of whom he was among the roughest and bravest, and

remember the names of Arizonans, of every station and walk of

life, who risked everything so that the freedom Arizonans

cherish so dearly and make such good use of would be

birthright of all; names like Frank Luke and Ira Hayes, Lori

Piestewa and Pat Tillman.

I've experienced every scene of spectacular beauty this

blessed, bountiful, beautiful state possesses. I've hiked

Canyon de Chelly, Chiricahua, and rim to rim in the greatest

of our natural wonders, the Grand Canyon. I've rafted down

the Colorado. I've walked the trails of Saguaro National

Park; been struck mute by the awe-inspiring landscape of

Monument Valley; and spent countless happy hours following

hidden paths in our wilderness areas. I've houseboated on

Lake Powell. Many times, I've driven through the desert in

spring after a wet winter and felt myself become emotional as

I marveled at the profusion of vivid colors, the mesmerizing

beauty of desert wildflowers in bloom.

We have a home between Cottonwood and Sedona, to where my

family escapes whenever we have the chance. It's on a bend of

Oak Creek, surrounded by hills, a ghost ranch and Indian

caves, adorned by fruit orchards and roses, and shaded by

tall cottonwoods and sycamores. So many species of birds make

their home there I have lost count of them. Common black

hawks return annually to their nest in the sycamore beneath

which I drink my morning coffee and give thanks for the

blessing of living in such natural splendor. I have never in

my life loved a place more. And when my public life is over,

I will spend the remainder of my days there giving thanks,

and enjoying the happiness of belonging to someplace so

beautiful, smaller and more intimate than a nation that spans

a continent.

The State of Arizona is approaching its centennial. A

hundred years of audacious and difficult undertakings, of

dreams won and lost and sought again, of progress and

struggle and resilience. It's a rough and tumble history;

colorful, heroic, bold and inspiring, like the character of

the people who made it. You'll see it celebrated

appropriately in this splendid book. And you'll glimpse the

future that today's Arizonans, the dreamers and risk takers,

lovers of freedom, captivated by the stunning landscapes and

resilient, enterprising communities that have worked their

magic on them, will build. It will be a future worthy of our

predecessors' achievements and legacies; a future of

adversity overcome and opportunities for all. We will change,

as all places do. Others will come, as I once came, to make a

new home or find the only home they ever really had in towns

and cities and rural communities that will be better for

their presence and contributions. They will face the

challenges of their time and experience unexpected setbacks

but they will stick with it, work harder, dream bigger and

prevail. And a hundred years from now, their history,

character and accomplishments will inspire their fortunate

descendents and the newcomers who will come here to live in

beauty and make the most of their lives.

We will change, but the values and beauty we treasure will

remain intact. Arizona is 113,400 square miles of heaven that

God cut out and Arizonans mean to keep it so. We love it that

much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of Senator Toomey's amendment to permanently ban the use of earmarks in Congress. The underlying bill, the STOCK Act, was designed to end a corrupt practice in Congress. I fully support that goal. But if we are serious about ending corruption in Congress, then we must begin by permanently banning earmarks. It is my belief that these two issues go hand and hand.

One of the most blatant examples of the corruption that stems from earmarking is the case of former U.S. Representative Randy Cunningham who now sits in a Federal penitentiary today for selling earmarks. Among the $2.4 million in bribes Cunningham admitted receiving were the sale of his house at an inflated price, the free use of a yacht, a used Rolls-Royce, antique furniture, Persian rugs, jewelry, and a $2,000 contribution for his daughter's college graduation party. In return, he earmarked untold millions of dollars and pressured the Department of Defense to award contracts to his co-conspirators.

Year after year I have been coming to the Senate floor to speak out against the corrupt practice of Congressional earmarking and I have been joined by many of my colleagues such as Senators Coburn and McCaskill. Even President Obama called for a ban on earmarks in last year's State of the Union speech. The time has come to end this practice once and for all, permanently.

Let me be clear, both Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of wasting valuable taxpayer dollars on these pet projects. And as the moratorium on earmarking expires at the end of this year, we must move forward with a permanent ban to protect the American taxpayer.

Let me remind my colleagues about our current fiscal situation. Our National debt now stands at over $15 trillion and our deficit stands at $1.3 trillion. In fact, this is the fourth year in a row with deficits over a trillion dollars. Unemployment in our country stands at 8.5 percent and according to CBO, unemployment is expected to remain above 8 percent until 2015. Given these dismal economic numbers, are we prepared to tell the American people that we want to go back to the corrupt practice of earmarking and spend their hard-earned tax dollars on pork barrel projects that have little purpose other than to improve the re-election prospects of their authors?

Some of my colleagues are ``happy'' with their earmarking pasts and have justified carrying on the practice by saying that they only account for a small percentage of our annual budget. That may be the case--but is that really reason enough to continue a practice that breeds corruption? I am very aware that earmarks consume a very small percentage of a budget measured in the trillions. But given the serious problems confronting American families, many of whom wake up every morning wondering if they will lose their job or their house, it is appalling that Congress will not stir itself to relinquish any of its self-serving prerogatives in solidarity with the people we serve, who have had to tighten their own budgets, change their spending habits and restrain their ambitions. It is all the more offensive given that we have had in recent times all the evidence we should require to understand that earmarks are so closely tied to acts of official corruption.

In a report titled ``Why Earmarks Matter'' The Heritage Foundation wrote:

They Invite Corruption: Congress does have a proper role in

determining the rules, eligibility and benefit criteria for

federal grant programs. However, allowing lawmakers to select

exactly who receives government grants invites corruption.

Instead of entering a competitive application process within

a federal agency, grant-seekers now often have to hire a

lobbyist to win the earmark auction. Encouraged by lobbyists

who saw a growth industry in the making, local governments

have become hooked on the earmark process for funding

improvement projects.

They Encourage Spending: While there may not be a causal

relationship between the two, the number of earmarks approved

each year tracks closely with growth in Federal spending.

They Distort Priorities: Many earmarks do not add new

spending by themselves, but instead redirect funds already

slated to be spent through competitive grant programs or by

states into specific projects favored by an individual

member. So, for example, if a member of the Nevada delegation

succeeded in getting a $2 million earmark to build a bicycle

trail in Elko in 2005, then that $2 million would be taken

out of the $254 million allocated to the Nevada Department of

Transportation (DOT) for that year. So if Nevada had wanted

to spend that money fixing a highway in rapidly expanding Las

Vegas, thanks to the earmark, they would now be out of luck.

If we want to show the American public that we are really serious about preventing corruption in Congress than we owe it to the American people to completely ban all earmarks in Congress. Senator Toomey's amendment proposes to do just that and I encourage my colleagues to support his amendment.

Mr. President, I don't have anything more to say. On behalf of myself and Senator Rockefeller, I offer this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank both the Senator from New York and the Senator from Maine for their courtesy.

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 1471.

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

Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment is very simple. It would prohibit bonuses for senior executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while they are in a taxpayer-backed conservatorship. I am joined in this effort by Senators Rockefeller, Enzi, McCaskill, Johanns, Barrasso, Blunt, Graham, Coburn, and Thune.

Since they were placed in conservatorship in 2008, these two government-sponsored entities have soaked the American taxpayer for nearly $170 billion in bailouts. Recently Freddie Mac requested an additional $6 billion and Fannie Mae requested an additional $7.8 billion. That is $13.8 billion more coming out of the pockets of hard- working Americans, many of whom are underwater on their mortgages.

I wish to read an article from Politico from back in October entitled ``Fannie, Freddie dole out big bonuses.''

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government

regulator for Fannie and Freddie, approved $12.79 million in

bonus pay after 10 executives from the two government

sponsored corporations last year met modest performance

targets tied to modifying mortgages in jeopardy of

foreclosure.

The executives got the bonuses about two years after the

federally backed mortgage giants received nearly $170 billion

in taxpayer bailouts--and despite pledges by FHFA, the office

tasked with keeping them solvent, that it would adjust the

level of CEO-level pay after critics slammed huge

compensation packages paid out to former Fannie Mae CEO

Franklin Raines and others.

Securities and Exchange Commission documents show that Ed

Haldeman, who announced last week that he is stepping down as

Freddie Mac's CEO, received a base salary of $900,000 last

year, yet took home an additional $2.3 million in bonus pay.

Records show other Fannie and Freddie executives got similar

Wall Street-style compensation packages. Fannie Mae CEO

Michael Williams, for example, got $2.37 million in

performance bonuses.

Including Haldeman, the top five officers at Freddie banked

a combined $6.46 million in performance pay alone last year,

though a second bonus installment for 2010 has yet to be

reported to the SEC, according to agency records. Williams

and others at Fannie pocketed $6.33 million in incentives for

what SEC records described as meeting the primary goal of

providing ``liquidity, stability and affordability'' to the

national market.

I think it is important to ask the question, is it necessary for these bonuses to be provided to these executives when we have men and women who are literally in harm's way, who are compensated far less? Is it possible that there aren't some patriotic Americans who would be willing to serve and head up these organizations and try to get them cleaned up?

The primary causes of the collapse of our economy still plague us to this day.

I ask unanimous consent that an article from Politico be printed in the Record.

For decades, the American taxpayer has been the victim of outright corruption and blatant abuse at the hands of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There have been countless warnings over the mismanagement of both Freddie and Fannie over the years. In May 2006, after a 27- month investigation into the corrupt corporate culture and accounting practices at Fannie Mae, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the Federal regulator which oversees Fannie Mae, issued a blistering 348-page report which stated in part that ``Fannie Mae senior management promoted an image of the enterprise as one of the lowest-risk financial institutions in the world, as ``best in class'' in terms of risk management financial reporting, internal control, and corporate governance. The findings in this report show that risks at Fannie Mae are greatly understated and the image was false.

During the period covered by that report, Fannie Mae reported extremely smooth profit growth and had announced targets for earnings per share precisely each quarter. Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by the enterprise's senior management with the aid of inappropriate accounting and improper earnings management.

A large number of Fannie Mae's accounting policies and practices did not comply with generally accepted accounting principles. The enterprise also had serious problems with internal control and corporate governance. These errors resulted in Fannie Mae overstating reported income and capital by a currently estimated $10.6 billion.

By deliberately and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings targets, senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received at the expense of the shareholders. Earnings management made a significant contribution to the compensation of Fannie Mae chairman CEO Franklin Raines, which totaled--Franklin Raines' bonus totaled over $90 million from 1998 through 2003. Of that total, over $52 million was directly tied to achieving earnings per share targets, which turned out to be totally false.

The list goes on and on. Mr. President, I recommend to my colleagues, before I go too much further, this book. The title is ``Reckless Endangerment,'' by Gretchen Morgenson, who happens to be a columnist and writer for the New York Times, and Joshua Rosner. ``How Outside Ambition, Greed and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon.''

In this book it points the finger directly at Fannie and Freddie. I will quote one part of it:

Because bonuses at Fannie Mae were largely based on per

share earnings growth, it was paramount to keep profits

escalating to guarantee bonus payouts. And in 1998, top

Fannie officials had begun manipulating the company's results

by dipping into various profit cookie jars to produce the

level of income necessary to generate bonus payouts to top

management.

Federal investigators later found that you could predict

what Fannie's earnings-per-share would be at year-end, almost

to the penny, if you knew the maximum earnings-per-share

bonus payout target set by management at the beginning of

each year. Between 1998 and 2002, actual earnings and the

bonus payout target differed only by a fraction of the cent,

the investigators found.

Investigators uncovered documents from 1998 detailing the

tactics used by Leanne Spencer, a finance official at Fannie,

to make the company's $2.48 per-share bonus payout target.

That year, Fannie Mae earned $2.4764 per share.

In a mid-November memo to her superiors, Spencer forecast

that the company was on track to earn $2.4744 per share, just

shy of what was needed to generate maximum bonus payments to

executives. She described various ways she could juice the

company's profits if need be.

It goes on and on, and then it says this:

That month, Thomas Nides, Fannie's executive vice president

for human resources, warned a swath of top managers that

earnings growth was coming in weak as the year-end

approached.

``You know that as a management group member, you help

drive the performance of the company,'' Nides wrote in a

memo. ``That's why your total compensation is tied to how

well Fannie Mae does each year.

In other words, he was jacking them up, telling them that they have to cook the books some more.

It says:

The memo achieved the desired result. Fannie Mae executives

wound up exceeding their target in 1998 by accounting

improperly for low-income housing tax credits the company

received. The result: 547 people shared in $27.1 million in

bonuses. This was a record--the bonuses represented 0.79

percent of Fannie Mae's after-tax profits, more than ever

before in the company's history.

The list goes on and on. By the way, executive pay at Fannie Mae was a well-kept secret, and the company successfully blocked some in Congress, such as Congressman Richard Baker of Louisiana, from receiving information about salaries and bonuses paid by the company. It was only after Fannie was caught cooking its books that details of the lavish pay came out.

The accounting fraud went undiscovered until 2005, when an investigation by OFHEO unearthed it in a voluminous and detailed 2006 report. OFHEO noted that if Fannie Mae had used the appropriate accounting methods in 1998, the company's performance would have generated no executive bonuses at all. Although a highly kept secret at the time, Johnson's bonus for 1998 was $1.9 million. Investigators returned and it later emerged that the company made inaccurate disclosures when it said Johnson earned a total of almost $7 million in 1998. In actuality, his total compensation that year was more like $21 million.

None of these people, to my knowledge, have ever been punished--ever. It is one of the great scandals of our time. What steps were taken by Congress at that time to punish Fannie Mae? None.

According to published reports, including Fannie Mae's own news release, Daniel Mudd, the President and CEO of Fannie Mae at the time, was awarded over $14.4 million in 2006 and over $12.2 million in 2007 in salary, bonuses, and stock, and Fannie Mae continued their risky behavior, successfully posting profits of $4.1 billion in 2006.

Well, I fully understand that the corrupt individuals who cooked the books

in order to meet the targets necessary for maximum executive compensation are no longer in place at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For that, we can be thankful. But let's be clear about one thing: the structure for executive bonuses remains in place. There is still incentives for executives at Fannie and Freddie to meet certain goals in order to be rewarded with millions of dollars in bonuses.

I am not suggesting that either one of these GSEs is using fraudulent accounting methods, but the taxpayer remains at risk if an unscrupulous individual or a group of individuals decides to put their own self- interests above that of the American people. It has happened at Fannie and Freddie before, and it can happen again. It is unconscionable.

It has been proven time and again that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are synonymous with mismanagement, waste, and outright corruption and fraud, and their Federal regulator had the audacity to approve $12.8 million in executive bonuses to people who make $900,000 a year. This body should be ashamed if we let this happen again, especially in these tough economic times.

Every day more and more Americans are losing their jobs and their homes, and we are allowing these people to take home annual salaries of $900,000 and bonuses of $12.8 million, all while they ask the taxpayers for $6 billion more in bailout money.

Many of my colleagues sent a letter to Edward DeMarco, the Acting Director of the FHFA, asking for an explanation for his decision to award millions in bonuses to executives at Fannie and Freddie. In his response, Mr. DeMarco echoed what has become an increasingly popular theme used to defend the big payouts. Essentially, Mr. DeMarco argues that in order to get the best people in place, we need to pay them outrageous amounts of taxpayer dollars. Well, I don't buy that argument.

It is ridiculous to tell the American taxpayer: Look, we lost hundreds of billions of your money, so we need to pay these smart guys millions of dollars of your money so that we don't lose the rest of your money. The American people are smart enough to see through that sham logic and they are angry.

As I have previously stated on the Senate floor, I find it hard to believe that we cannot find talented people with the skills necessary to manage Fannie and Freddie for good money--$900,000--without the incentive of multimillion-dollar bonuses. There are many examples of intelligent, well-qualified, patriotic individuals working in our Federal Government who make significantly less than the top executives at Fannie and Freddie, with just as much responsibility.

For example, the basic pay for a four-star general is $179,700. Including the basic allowance for housing, that figure rises to $214,980. Chief Justice Roberts makes $223,500 a year. The President's Cabinet Members make $199,700 a year. Today, to add a little insult to injury--or a lot of insult to injury--here is today's story from NPR.

Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-owned mortgage giant, has placed

multibillion-dollar bets that pay off if homeowners stay

trapped in expensive mortgages with interest rates well above

current rates.

This is the same outfit we are paying all this money to in these bonuses; so they decided to bet against the homeowners of America.

Freddie began increasing these bets dramatically in late

2010, the same time that the company was making it harder for

homeowners to get out of such high-interest mortgages.

No evidence has emerged that these decisions were

coordinated. The company is a key gatekeeper for home loans

but says its traders are ``walled off'' from the officials

who have restricted homeowners from taking advantage of

historically low interest rates by imposing higher fees and

new rules.

Freddie's charter calls for the company to make home loans

more accessible. Its chief executive, Charles Haldeman, Jr.,

recently told Congress that his company is ``helping

financially strapped families reduce their mortgage costs

through refinancing their mortgages.''

But the trades, uncovered for the first time in an

investigation by ProPublica and NPR, give Freddie a powerful

incentive to do the opposite, highlighting a conflict of

interest at the heart of the company.

Do we need this company around? Can't we find something better?

In addition to being an instrument of government policy

dedicated to making home loans more accessible, Freddie also

has giant investment portfolios and could lose substantial

amounts of money if too many borrowers refinance. . . .

Freddie Mac's trades, while perfectly legal, came during a

period when the company was supposed to be reducing its

investment portfolio, according to the terms of its

government takeover agreement. But these trades escalate the

risk of its portfolio, because the securities Freddie has

purchased are volatile and hard to sell, mortgage securities

experts say.

The financial crisis in 2008 was made worse when Wall

Street traders made bets against their customers and the

American people. Now, some see similar behavior, only this

time by traders at a government-owned company who are using

leverage, which increases the potential profits but also the

risk of big losses, and other Wall Street strategums. ``More

than three years into the government takeover, we have

Freddie Mac pursuing highly levered, complicated transactions

seemingly with the purpose of trading against homeowners,''

says Mayer. ``These are the kinds of things that got us into

trouble in the first place.''

You can't make it up. So it seems to me that the first thing we ought to do, as I and others have recommended, is get these GSEs on the track to going out of business as quickly as possible. Their track record is outrageous. The second thing, let's not give millions of dollars in bonuses to people who are betting against the homeowners of America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to yield 2 minutes of my 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Here we are again, a bill that is 1,221 pages long that not one Member of this body has read. These 1,221 pages represent $915 billion in taxpayer money. Yet here we are with not one amendment. We do, however, have 15 minutes of debate in which to consider a document that is 1,221 pages long, representing $915 billion of taxpayer money, which is filled with unauthorized, unrequested money.

Now, I haven't had a chance, like the rest of my colleagues, to look at all of this 1,200-page bill, but we have looked at the defense section. There is $3.5 billion of unrequested, unauthorized funding by the authorizing committee--projects such as this one for Guam.

Here are a couple of my favorites. You thought the bridge to nowhere was bad? Well, there are 53 civilian schoolbuses and 53 repair kits for $10.7 million and $12.7 million for a cultural artifacts repository. That is in the name of defense. That is in the name of defense-- schoolbuses and a cultural artifact repository.

Here is $100 million for the Next Generation Bomber, which the Air Force says they do not want and they do not need. How about this cockamamie outfit--the Combat Dragon, which will be crop dusters equipped with weapons. Or the C-17s--$225 million additional for C-17s that long ago the military said they did not need.

There is $3.5 billion just in the DOD provisions alone. It is outrageous. It is outrageous.

I have amendments associated with this bill that will save the taxpayers billions of dollars. But, never mind, because we are going to go home for Christmas.

Well, let me tell you, I am going home to a State where they do not have enough in the food banks to take care of the homeless this year. I am going home to a State where half of the homes are underwater. Yet what have we done? We have just wasted billions and billions and billions of taxpayer money on projects that are unneeded, unwanted, and unrequested.

This system is broken. This system is broken. We should have taken up these bills one by one, with amendments, with debate and discussion. I want to tell the majority leader and the Republican leader that next year, we will have a plan, a group of us, to say we must do that.

We owe it to the taxpayers of America.

I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.