Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for her strong efforts on behalf of the men and women in the military and their welfare and benefits. She is an advocate and a person who is committed to making sure that not only those who are now serving but those who have are cared for by our society and by our military and our veterans facilities.

So I thank the Senator. I appreciate the very eloquent statement she just made.

I send an amendment to the desk, as modified, No. 1246, and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, the amendment is to require the Secretary of Defense to consult with the Armed Services Committee in commissioning an independent assessment of U.S. security interests in East Asia and in the Pacific region. It has been cleared on both sides. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I would ask my friend, the chairman, if perhaps we could give our colleagues a brief update on where we are. There are not that many amendments remaining. There are a couple of rather serious amendments concerning detainees that are still outstanding. But overall I think we can tell our colleagues that we are pretty well moving along.

We still have a pending package of amendments that have been agreed to by both sides that, unfortunately, we are unable to move forward. But, hopefully, we will be able to do that.

Mr. President, we think we can get wrapped up tomorrow. But there are serious amendments remaining. The Menendez-Kirk amendment is a very serious amendment and one that probably is going to deserve some debate time as well as the Feinstein amendment. The Sessions amendment also is one as well. So I think our colleagues should be prepared for a pretty interesting day tomorrow.

Amendment No. 1185, as Modified

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I thank the chairman for the progress we have made and also again point out that we have some very serious issues that deserve debate and discussion. But when cloture expires--the 30 hours--there will be an automatic vote triggered at that time. We look forward to working with our colleagues to make sure they have sufficient time to debate the amendments.

It would be regrettable, as important as some of these amendments are, that we back up to the expiration of the cloture time and that would trigger an automatic vote. I am sure we will get the cooperation of all our colleagues.

Mr. President, I listened to the discussion by Senator Rand Paul, and I understand his theory. Facts are stubborn things, and 27 percent of those who have been released have been back in the fight. That is fact. That is fact. Some of them have assumed leadership positions with al-Qaida. That is fact.

The Senator from Kentucky wants to have a situation prevail where people are released and go back in the fight and kill Americans. That is his right. He is entitled to that opinion. But facts are stubborn things. The fact is 27 percent of detainees who were released went back into the fight to try to kill Americans.

Mr. President, in response to that, we are not arguing that they be sent to a foreign prison. What we are arguing is that they are designated as enemy combattants. When they are enemy combatants, then they are subject to the rules and the laws of war. Again, I point out the fact that there have been a number who have been released who have reentered the fight, and that kind of situation is not something we want to prevail.

So as I said, facts are stubborn things, and they are designated as enemy combatants and will be treated as such during the period of conflict.

I take it that as long as the individual, no matter who they

are--if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, they should not be allowed to continue that threat. I think that is the opinion of the American public, especially in light of the facts I continue to repeat to the Senator from Kentucky--that 27 percent of the detainees who were released got back in the fight and were responsible for the deaths of Americans. We need to take every step necessary to prevent that from happening. That is for the safety and security of the men and women who are putting their lives on the line in the armed services.

I yield the floor.

I object. We have had a long time from the sponsor of the amendment, the chief proponent; we are going to have 10 minutes from the Senator of Illinois. So I yield to the Senator from South Carolina 10 minutes.

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

Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire, followed by time from Senator Levin for the Senator from Connecticut, and then what time I have remaining for the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. President, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who have engaged in a very important debate.

I would also like to say to my friend from Michigan, the chairman, I have observed him for many years debate various issues on the floor of the Senate and in the Armed Services Committee. I have never seen him more eloquent than I have observed in his statements today and throughout this debate. I also appreciate the fact that there are many in his conference who do not agree with the position taken by the chairman, and I especially am admiring of that.

I yield.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Colorado be allowed----

Two minutes, at least.

Such time as he may need.

Mr. President, the pending amendment is the Udall amendment.

Am I correct, I ask the chairman, in that we would intend, depending on--there are several things that have to be resolved--but we would intend to have this vote at around 2:15 p.m., if things work out? Is that correct?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending McCain amendments Nos. 1230 and 1281 be modified with the changes at the desk.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

For the benefit of our colleagues, could I add also the agreement of a half hour time limit on the Paul amendment? He would agree to that. I am sure Senator Landrieu would agree to a short time agreement on her amendment.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin and the staff for the thorough job of investigation that was undertaken to identify the counterfeit electronic parts that are penetrating the Department of Defense supply chain.

I thank Senator Whitehouse for his provisions which have been added to the bill from a bill he had introduced in the Judiciary Committee.

At the hearing we had on November 8, the committee received additional evidence to supplement an already robust investigative record, and some very serious issues were raised, including the threat counterfeit electronic parts pose to the safety of our men and women in uniform, to our national security, and to our economy, how counterfeits increase the short- and long-term costs of defense systems, the lack of transparency in the Defense supply chain, and the U.S. relationship with the People's Republic of China.

I see the Senator from Kentucky is on the floor. But I would just like to point out again and emphasize the points the chairman has made.

The problem of counterfeit electronic parts in the Defense supply chain is more serious than most people realize. During its investigation, our committee uncovered over 1,800 incidents, totaling over 1 million parts of counterfeit electronic parts in the Defense supply chain. Suspect counterfeit electronic parts have been installed or delivered to the military for use on thermal weapons sites, on THAAD missile mission computers, and on military aircraft, including the C- 27J, C-17, C-130J, P-8A Poseidon, SH-60B, AH-64, and the CH-46.

I do not claim this legislation will solve the problem of counterfeiting from China, the whole issue of intellectual property. Counterfeiting that goes on in other aspects of the world's economy and ours is one that is a very large issue. But at least this is an effort to make sure, as much as we can, that the men and women who serve in our military are not subject to operating systems that could literally endanger their lives--much less the incredible increase of the taxpayers' dollars.

I thank the chairman again and his staff, and I can assure my colleagues this is an issue we will be following very closely in the days and weeks and months ahead.

I note the presence of Senator Paul, so I ask for the regular order.

Amendment No. 1064

Mr. President, I would like to first of all thank the Senator from Kentucky for quoting me. It is always a very pleasant experience as long as it is something that one would admire. On several occasions, I have been quoted in ways that I wish I had observed what my old friend Congressman Morris Udall used to say is the politician's prayer: May the words that I utter today be tender and sweet because tomorrow I may have to eat them. So I want to thank the Senator from Kentucky for his kind words.

I also want to praise the Senator from Kentucky, who is a person who has come here with a firm conviction that he not only has principles but he intends to act on those principles in as impactful a way as possible and represent the people of Kentucky in a very activist fashion. He has my admiration. However, I would rise in opposition to the amendment.

I would like to read from a letter that was sent to the chairman and to me from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense.

This week, as you consider the National Defense

Authorization Act, the Department of Defense would like to

respond to your request for views on the amendment offered by

Senator Paul which would repeal the Authorization for the Use

of Military Force in Iraq. U.S. Forces are now in the final

stages of coming home by the end of 2011. We are moving to a

new phase in the relationship between our two countries and

equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual

respect.

While amendment No. 1064 echoes the President's policy, we

cannot support the amendment as drafted. Outright and

complete repeal of the AUMF-I, which is the Authorization for

the Use of Military Force in Iraq, withdraws all

Congressional support for any limited windup activities

normally associated with ending a war. Thank you very much

for your continued efforts.

The Department of Defense sent over an unclassified response that was approved by several members of the Pentagon. It says: Although we are implementing the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement in full and pulling out all of our forces by the end of the year, we still have a limited number of DOD personnel under the Chief of Mission Authority to staff the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq. Because there may be elements that would choose this time of transition to attempt to do harm to these personnel, it is essential that the Department of Defense retain the authority and flexibility to respond to such threats. The AUMF-I provides these authorities. The administration has worked closely with Congress in circumstances where it has been necessary to rely on the AUMF, and it would continue to do so should the need arise.

In other words, and unfortunately, Iraq remains a dangerous place. We will have the largest contingent of Americans as part of the embassy there as we withdraw our combat troops. Some 16,000 Americans will man our embassy and consulates in Iraq, and unfortunately there are great signs of instability in Iraq. Al-Sadr has said that any remaining American troops will be a target. The Iranians continue to encourage attacks on Americans. There are significant divisions within the country which are beginning to widen, such as Sunni-Shia, the area around Kirkuk, increasing Iranian influence in the country.

I will refrain from addressing the deep concerns I had before the agreement to completely withdraw took place. I will leave that out of this discussion because I feel the decision that was clearly made not to keep a residual force in the country, which was made by this administration and which is the subject for debate on another day, has placed the remaining Americans in significant jeopardy. As I say, that is 16,000 Americans to carry out the postwar commitments we have made to Iraq to help them rebuild their country after many years of war and bloodshed.

I certainly understand the aim of the Senator from Kentucky. The President campaigned for President of the United States committing to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq. He is now achieving that goal. But I think it would be very serious to revoke all authority that we might have in order to respond to possible unrest and disruption within the country that might require the presence, at least on some level or another, of American troops to safeguard those 16,000 Americans who will be remaining in Iraq when our troops withdraw. So I argue that the amendment be defeated.

I yield the floor.

How long will the Senator take?

All right.

Amendment No. 1115, as Modified

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, amendment No. 1419 would correct an unintended staff error in the new Division D funding tables that the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to adopt Tuesday, November 15, 2011. This error unintentionally reduced the President's budget request for the line 154, RDTE AF, JSTARS account by $33 million. This amendment would correct this error and restore the RDTE AF JSTARS account back to the level requested in the President's budget request and approved in the June 22, 2011, SASC-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act. Both the majority and minority staff directors have acknowledged that this was an unintended staff error and have requested that this be corrected by restoring full funding of the RDTE AF JSTARS account to $121,610,000. Chairman Levin and I agree.

Will the Senator yield on the issue of the post office?

Isn't it kind of a symptom of the disease we suffer from here where we would not even agree to legislation that cuts mail delivery from 6 days to 5 days, which is the recommendation of the Postmaster General?

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman.

Isn't it true, I would ask the chairman, that we went on this bill last Thursday and that we spent a good part of Thursday on this legislation? Then on Friday, you and I and a few others came in on Friday and had further debate and discussion of amendments; and then we came in, I believe, around 1:00 today and enjoined, in fact pleaded, with our colleagues to come and discuss their amendments they have pending? I understand there are over 100 amendments pending. So it does ring a bit hollow if some of our colleagues may say they didn't have time to debate the amendments that are pending.

So I would say to my colleagues, I believe--and have stated endlessly--this piece of legislation, which has to do with the Nation's security, which has been passed by the Congress of the United States for over 50 years now, for over a half century, without interruption, that we are doing a disservice to the men and women in the military if we don't debate these amendments, if we don't discuss the important issues of national security that are embodied in this legislation.

So I would ask my friend, the distinguished chairman, after these thousands of hours of work, and now on our fourth day of consideration of this bill, that maybe it might be appropriate for us to take measures to expedite the process. Again, I urge our colleagues who have pending amendments to come down and debate and discuss them so that we can line up votes because there are so many pending amendments it is going to require a significant number of votes as well.

So my colleagues should not object to short time agreements for debate, final debate before we vote on some of these amendments.

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

I wonder, if it is agreeable to the majority leader, rather than wait on the amendment concerning the National Guard, perhaps in anticipation of that eventuality the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from South Carolina would be allowed to speak on that amendment in the case that it is accepted. If not, then their words, as usual, would not be much.

I thank the majority leader.

Will the Senator from South Carolina yield for a question?

Since, apparently, this amendment will be passed and signed by the President, is the Senator from South Carolina interested in being the head of the----

I don't seek recognition.

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

Mr. President, I wish to thank the majority leader for working very hard to see that we could move forward with this legislation and reach an agreement on a very significant issue.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

It is my understanding that Senator Udall has also agreed to a half hour equally divided--debate, equally divided?

Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin and his staff for their hard work on this very important piece of legislation. I am glad to see the chairman announced that the staff will be in working next week. For a change, the taxpayers will get a return on their investment. I am very glad to know that. But in all seriousness, they did a lot of work late last night and will be working hard all this week.

I think that maybe our colleagues should plan on some late nights when we get back because we do need to get this done. There is a lot of important business before the Senate.

I would also like to point out that we spent the better part of yesterday on the detainee issue, and I appreciate that the detainee issue is one that is of transcendent importance. It certainly goes beyond just national security. It is a very controversial issue with the American people and Members on both sides of the aisle. On one side of the aisle, they would like to see much more restrictive policies, and on the other side of the aisle there is a very serious concern--and a legitimate concern, although I don't share it--about erosion of the constitutional rights and liberties of American citizens.

Hopefully, we can get a vote on that amendment so we can move forward to other very important amendments that Members obviously, by the large number of amendments, are very interested in in this process. I also hope we are able to get a unanimous consent agreement to limit, to cut off the number of pending amendments so that we can make progress on those that have been filed and those that are pending.

I thank the chairman again and our respective staffs and our colleagues. I thought it was a very beneficial debate we had yesterday that a lot of Members participated in, and I think it served not only to educate our colleagues and the American people who observed it, but I also think it was a healthy discussion that was held on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of this issue, and it very well informed Senators on this issue.

Again, I understand, for example, that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, came to the floor and said we need a very in-depth discussion on this issue. I think we had that. I also think this is a very important issue and one that deserved the attention of the Senate, but now I think it is time to move on.

I also congratulate all Members who took part in sort of a colloquy and discussion we had amongst Members on both sides of this issue yesterday. I have found that those colloquies add a great deal to the debate as we get the input and ideas and sometimes spirited discussion on these issues.

So I thank the chairman, and we look forward to getting this important piece of legislation done.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I don't want to talk too much longer. I see our dear friend from New Mexico, who has been serious enough to come in this morning and debate and discuss his concerns about the bill and amendments.

But I would ask the chairman, we have, as the Senator mentioned, a large number of pending amendments--not just filed but pending--and one of them, of course, is for the detainee issue, there is another Paul amendment, and there are several others that perhaps we could vote on on Monday, as the chairman mentioned.

If any of our colleagues feel they haven't the time to amend it, they are welcome to come now and they are welcome to come on Monday. I understand that may cause them some small inconvenience in their schedule, but if they filed a pending amendment, then there is an amendment pending and they ought to be able to adjust their schedules to come and debate it. If they aren't able to do that, we should still be able to dispose of those amendments, I say with great respect and courtesy to all of my colleagues.

So I hope that Chairman Levin and I and others would say: Look, we are going to notify everybody that we are going to have votes on the following amendments on Monday afternoon after we vote on the judge. If you are interested in debating it, we will be here to debate it and discuss it with you.

We have to get this legislation passed for the good of the men and women who are serving this Nation with far greater inconvenience than, frankly, our colleagues might experience by having to come back on Monday or by coming over here today.

I yield.

Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my friend, Senator Udall. If it is OK with the chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered pending on behalf of their sponsors? Would that be agreeable?

For Senator Cornyn, amendment No. 1200, related to Taiwan F-16s; for Senator Ayotte, amendment No. 1066, related to financial audits; for Senator Ayotte, amendment No. 1067, as revised, related to the notification of Congress for the initial custody of members of al- Qaida; for Senator Ayotte, amendment No. 1068, related to the authorization of lawful interrogation methods; for Senator Brown of Massachusetts, amendment No. 1119, related to child custody rights; for Senator Brown of Massachusetts, amendment No. 1090, related to housing allowance rates; for Senator Brown of Massachusetts, amendment No. 1089, related to disclosures by schools participating in tuition assistance; for Senator Wicker, amendment No. 1056, related to military chaplains; and for Senator Wicker, amendment No. 1116, related to truck licenses for transitioning servicemembers.

Could I say, I hope Members on both sides, if they have amendments, get them to us this morning so we can bring this part of the process to an end.

Mr. President, I assume, then, having watched the debate and been informed, that the Senator from New Mexico now takes the position that Senator Levin and I do on this issue, and his next mission is to convince his colleague from Colorado of the correctness of our position?

One thing I have learned about the Senator from New Mexico is that he does give all issues a fair and objective hearing. He listens and he pays attention and he is informed in his decisions. I thank him for taking part in this one.

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

Mr. President, our staff is working on various amendments that we could get approved by both sides. We think there are a number of those on which we can get agreement to make progress today. While we are going through that process, I would like to point out the front page of this morning's Wall Street Journal, I am sorry to note, may be a harbinger of events that will happen in the future, that will take place in the future, which will be unfortunate for the United States of America and indeed tragic for Iraq.

The front page of the Wall Street Journal today says ``Standoff Over U.S. Airbase in Iraq.''

A tense standoff between local police and the Iraqi Army

played out on Thursday at the gate of the U.S. airbase in the

northern city of Kirkuk, where a dispute over land and oil

threatens national stability and unity as U.S. forces

withdraw.

The territorial conflict, between the central government in

Baghdad and the semiautonomous Kurdistan region, is just one

flash point that some American and Iraqi officials say could

boil over after the full pullout of U.S. troops at the end of

December.

Fears of a clash between Iraqi troops and Kurdish forces

were heightened on Thursday when the Kurdish-dominated police

in Kirkuk blocked senior Iraqi Army commanders from entering

the airbase, where they said they were planning to take over

the facility from the U.S. military.

The Army officials brought reporters from Iraqi State-owned

television to document the handover, in what appeared to be

an effort to show the nation that Baghdad was in charge. The

central government, headed by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki,

is increasingly eager to project its power ahead of the U.S.

pullout.

This is about a volatile region, particularly in the area around Kirkuk, which is also symptomatic of the entire northern Iraq border between Kurdistan, the semiautonomous region of Iraq, and the rest of Iraq. The area is inhabited by different ethnic groups that range from Turkmen to Arab to other nationalities who all inhabit the area. One of the reasons some of us wanted to have a residual force remain in Iraq-- one of actually three major reasons--was because of the tensions in this area which have already bubbled up on several occasions. In fact, there was a point some months ago where two forces were--the Pershmaga, the Kurdish military, and the Iraqi military--close to a shooting situation. The U.S. forces intervened. Obviously, they are not going to be there. Obviously, already before they have even left there has been a tense standoff at one of the major airbases in Iraq.

I greatly fear--I pray not, but I greatly fear that we will see more and more of these kinds of tensions between the Kurdish area and the rest of Iraq. A lot of it has to do with oil. A lot of it has to do with who is going to control the oil revenues in the area. Other parts go back to the era of Saddam Hussein, where he moved out Kurdish individuals and others and moved in people who were loyal to him. There are still enormous land disputes in the area as well. Suffice to say, it is a place of great tension. I continue to be deeply worried about this kind of tension which could lead to armed conflict, but also over time, in the view of some, could lead to an actual breakup of Iraq into Kurdish areas, Sunni areas, and even two different Shia areas of Iraq.

I am sorry to see this. I am sorry this is happening and that there are more people who are predicting greater tensions in the area, but I have to say, I am surprised. I am not surprised. The sad thing about all this--I had a rather, shall I say, spirited exchange with the Secretary of Defense the other day in the hearing that was held in the Armed Services Committee. This isn't a policy matter, this is a not an issue of whether we should have French fries served in school lunches. This is an issue we have shed the blood of well over 4,400 young Americans. I greatly fear that the opportunity that was purchased with their expenditure of American blood and treasure may go all for naught because of our failure to maintain a residual force in Iraq which, I repeat, was always envisioned when the

agreement for U.S. withdrawal was made by the previous administration-- by the way, an agreement I disagreed with at that time.

So I hope that when Prime Minister Maliki comes to Washington next month some of these issues can be ironed out, that we can have greater cooperation. But I don't think there is any doubt that right now up in the area of Kirkuk, they are paying much attention to the statements that may be made by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Corker, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment and call up the following amendments en bloc: amendment No. 1171, terrorist activities in Pakistan; amendment No. 1172, coalition support in Pakistan; and amendment No. 1173, Sense of the Senate regarding NATO.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate voted on the conference report to H.R. 2112. Unfortunately, I was not able to cast my vote in support of the conference report because it increased spending. By increasing spending, Congress is ignoring the fact that our country is facing a $15 trillion debt and $1.3 trillion budget deficit. By Congress refusing to cut Federal spending, we are telling the American public that we are not serious about restoring fiscal responsibility in government and will continue with business as usual.

In addition, the bill contains language that would increase the FHA loan limits from $625,500 to $729,750, further putting the American taxpayer at risk. Taxpayers are already on the hook for $170 billion in bailouts to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of irresponsible lending practices. And just last week Fannie and Freddie asked for an additional $13.8 billion in Federal funding from the pockets of hardworking Americans, many of whom are underwater on their mortgages. With over 50 percent of homeowners in Arizona underwater on their mortgages, I cannot support this increase in loan limits that could potentially worsen the disastrous housing market our country is currently facing.

While I appreciate the fact that Congress is doing its job by moving appropriations bills, I could not in good conscience have voted in support of this conference report knowing we are bankrupting our country. We must make sacrifices now to ensure that our children and grandchildren have the same opportunities that all of us have had instead of handing them a future filled with unsustainable debt and lost opportunities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a brief colloquy with the chairman, Senator Levin.

First of all, I wish to thank the Chairman for the long years of work we have had together. This is the culmination of this year's work which is coming to the floor after great difficulty and a lot of obstacles. I want to thank the Senator again for the spirit of bipartisanship, which is a long tradition in the committee which was practiced by our predecessors. Obviously, we know on occasion that we have differences of views, and sometimes we--especially I--express those in perhaps a passionate manner. But the fact is, at the end of the day, we continue to come together and work together for the good of this Nation's security.

The reason I ask the Senator is because I think our colleagues ought to understand the context of this bill. First of all, it is a new bill, and it has a reduction of some $20 billion in authorization in order to keep with the Budget Control Act, a total now of a $27 billion reduction, which is a significant amount of money. It seems to me our colleagues should understand this $9.8 billion cut in defense procurement, $3.5 billion cut in research, development, test, and evaluation, $1.6 billion cut in military construction, $6.7 billion in overseas--these are significant reductions already in what we had originally envisioned as necessary for our Nation's defense capability.

I would ask the chairman, these are painful decisions we had to make. For those who somehow believe it is business as usual in the Department of Defense and on the Defense authorization, it simply is not correct. We have already made significant reductions, I ask my colleague.

Could I ask my colleague, also, two more points. One is that we also have planned for an additional well over $400 billion reductions in the next decade, and those will again entail at some point an increase in risk. So in that context, I would appreciate again an expression of the chairman's view of a Draconian cut that would take place as a result of sequestration. The Secretary of Defense has testified before our committee of the ``devastating effects,'' as have our military leaders.

Finally, I would ask the chairman, we have met the requirements of the Appropriations Committee with this additional $20 billion reduction in this ``new'' legislation. Then it seems it would be only appropriate that the Appropriations Committee meet the provisions of authorization that are in the authorization bill.

In other words, I am told there are some differences in the Appropriations Committee's bill as far as what the authorizing committee's responsibilities are. I hope the Appropriations Committee would address those differences in deference to our role as authorizers.

I thank the Senator from Michigan.

I finally wish to comment. I am more than hoping. I intend to identify those areas of difference between the authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee, and fully expect the appropriating committee--unless there is some overriding reason--to conform with the authorization bill.

Again, I thank Senator Levin and his staff for the work we are doing. And I thank the leadership. I thank Senator Reid for bringing the bill to the floor. I know he has a lot of important priorities, but I believe it is very important that we continue an over half-century tradition of the Senate taking up, passing, and then finally seeing enacted into law the Defense authorization bill.

I think it is a valid statement to say that there is no greater priority the people's representatives have than to take every measure we can possible to ensure the security of our Nation and the men and women who serve in it. This legislation is the result of literally thousands of hours of discussion, debate, hearings, input to make sure we do the very best job we can to protect our Nation.

As I mentioned earlier, with the committee's action earlier this week we have ensured that our authorization top line of $526 billion for the base Defense budget complies with the budget allocation levels adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee for fiscal year 2012.

We have worked with the administration over the past several weeks to address their concerns with the detainee provisions in our bill. We understand the administration is still not satisfied with the committee work. We have made many clarifications, modifications at the request of the administration to the detainee provisions as they were reported from the committee in June. As a result, we were able to report out the bill again this week with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 26 to 0.

We will be glad to continue our discussions with the administration. I am grateful the administration reached out to us and that because of that discussion in negotiations with Mr. Brennan and others from the White House we were able to make some changes. I regret they haven't been sufficient to overcome their objections, but we will continue to work with them. This is a very important issue.

Obviously, our collective goal is to make sure that members of terrorist organizations, specifically al-Qaida, do not return to the fight, and that we make sure we are able to treat al-Qaida members who are captured in keeping with international law, but at the same time in keeping with the priority interests of America's national security. So I understand there will be an amendment on that issue or amendments. We look forward to debating and discussing that aspect.

Whatever additional concerns that may remain with the detainee provisions should be dealt with, as they will be, through debate and amendment. But, importantly, all of the aspects of this bill are of such vital importance to supporting the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families. We have already started to work on amendments that we know our colleagues are preparing to offer on this bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to file their germane amendments as quickly as possible.

Obviously, I repeat, the legislation is extremely important to our Nation's defense and the men and women in uniform. I know all of my colleagues appreciate that fact.

I would hope that this year, unlike in recent previous years, we will not add to this bill policy riders that are not relevant to the bill.

The committee bill before the Senate is the culmination of 11 months of hard work conducted through 71 hearings and meetings this year on the full range of national security priorities and issues. This tradition of deliberative review and oversight is typical of what the Defense authorization bill has provided our Nation's military for over 50 years, without fail. The committee's priorities this year and every year start with our bipartisan commitment to improve the quality of life for the men and women of the all-volunteer force--active duty, National Guard, and Reserves--and their families, through fair pay, improved policies, benefits commensurate with the sacrifices of their service, and by addressing the needs of the wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their families.

To do these things, this bill authorizes a 1.6-percent across-the- board pay raise for all members of the uniformed services, authorizes pay incentives for recruitment and retention of our most highly skilled and highly sought-after men and women, and improves the Uniformed Code of Military Justice to more effectively respond to accusations of certain types of misconduct. This bill provides essential resources, training, technology, equipment, and force protection our military needs to succeed in their missions, including authorizing a 6-percent increase in funding for our enormously important professional and dedicated special operations forces who play such a large role in our counterterrorism operations worldwide, and over $2.4 billion for the Department of Defense counter-improvised explosive device activities. I cannot overemphasize the importance of the timely funding of these counter-IED funds given the increase in the use of this kind of attack against our troops, first in Iraq and now in Afghanistan.

The bill enhances the capability of our military and that of our allies to conduct counterinsurgency operations, including the authority to provide support to those aiding U.S. Special Operations in combating terrorism in Yemen and East Africa, authorization of $400 million for the Commanders Emergency Response Program--known as CERP--in Afghanistan, and authorization of $11.1 billion to train and equip the Afghan security forces for the security of the Afghan people.

The bill strengthens and accelerates nuclear nonproliferation programs while maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent, reducing the number of nuclear weapons, and ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear stockpile, the delivery systems, and the nuclear infrastructure. In this regard, the bill authorizes $1.1 billion to continue development of the Ohio-class submarine replacement program to modernize the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad of delivery platforms. It improves our ability to counter nontraditional threats, focusing on terrorism and cyber warfare; in part by requiring DOD to acquire and incorporate capabilities for discovering previously unknown cyber attacks and establishing a new Joint Urgent Operational Need Fund to allow the Department to rapidly field new systems in response to battlefield requirements. It authorizes DOD to immediately void a contract if a contractor has been determined by the commander, U.S. Center Command, to be actively opposing U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

A related provision would provide enhanced audit authority to assist in the enforcement of this provision. It authorizes over $13 billion for new construction of critical facility projects that have a direct impact on the readiness and operations of our military while also providing much needed construction jobs in a struggling economy.

In contrast to these enhancements and new authorities, the committee also had to make some very difficult decisions. The President's budget request of $553 billion was cut by nearly $27 billion in recognition of the difficult budget situation our country faces. These difficult funding reductions include: $10 billion cut in the operation and maintenance accounts for the military services used to fund readiness and training activities. This was done mainly by scaling back the growth in service contracts while also reducing certain accounts for daily operating activities and training; a $9.8 billion cut in defense procurement accounts for programs that had more money than could be efficiently put under contract this year and programs that were not able to meet production milestones; a $3.5 billion cut in the research, development, test and evaluation accounts by examining the performance of hundreds of programs and

identifying those that showed excessive cost growth or a lack of performance; $1.6 billion in cuts in military construction projects, mostly at overseas locations, to allow for a review of our U.S. military force posture worldwide. In addition, the bill cuts $6.7 billion from the President's budget request of $118 billion for overseas contingency operations, known as OCO, due to a forecast of reduced operations in Afghanistan during 2012.

These cuts are the first step in what will be an extremely critical debate on the right amount of defense spending over the next 10 years. We will need to make some very difficult decisions that will undoubtedly increase risk as we decide whether to continue or terminate costly and, in some cases, troubled and overdue programs. We will need an informed and honest debate on which defense requirements and capabilities most effectively and efficiently protect the full range of our Nation's interests.

As such, this committee's review and curtailment of troubled, wasteful or unnecessary programs is not only essential to ensure proper stewardship of taxpayer funds but also stays true to the intent of preserving funds for war fighter priorities. Along these lines, this bill proposes to cut: $452 million for the Enhanced Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System due to program delays; $192 million from related Brigade Combat Team Modernization projects due to a program termination by the Army; $200 million for the Joint Tactical Radio System due to program delays; $406 million for the Medium Extended Air Defense Systems, known as MEADS, which is a high-risk joint program for air defense with Germany and Italy which the Army has decided not to deploy operationally; $519 million for the Joint Tactical Radio System, called JTRS, as a result of program execution and cost concerns; $244 million for Warfighter Information Network- Tactical; $173 million for Ground Soldier System-Net Warrior; $157 million for HMMWV recapitalization programs; $108 million for unnecessary postproduction funding for the C-17 Program; $233 million due to slow execution in the development of the family of Advanced Line Of Sight Terminals used in conjunction with the Advanced Extremely High Frequency Satellite System; $300 million by curtailing authority for long-term lease of a commercial satellite by the Defense Information Systems Agency due to a lack of an analysis of alternatives; $105 million in connection with delays in contract awards associated with GPS systems under development.

Even after this long list of cuts to troubled programs, I would have liked to have done more.

I wish to point out that in the days when we were increasing defense spending, it was one thing not to be in sync with the appropriations committee. In the days of reductions in defense spending, it is absolutely vital that the Appropriations Committee follow the guidance and authorization of the authorizing committee. I intend to do everything in my power to make sure that happens.

An example of what I would have liked to have seen more of is the Joint Strike Fighter or the F-35 Programs. I offered an amendment during the committee's markup that would have put the program on a 1- year probation if the costs under the fixed-price contract for the fourth lot of early production aircraft grew by more than 10 percent over their target cost by the end of the year. My goal was to send a strong, simple, and powerful message to the Pentagon and to Lockheed Martin, a message that we will no longer continue down the road of excessive cost growth and schedule slips on this program just because other alternatives are hard to come by.

We now are faced with a prospect of the first $1 trillion weapons system in history, which it certainly was not originally designed to be.

As it turned out, the amendment did not go forward as a result of a tie vote in committee. An alternative provision offered by Chairman Levin will instead require that the fifth lot of early production F-35 aircraft be procured under a fixed-price contract and that Lockheed Martin bear the entire responsibility for any cost overrun other than certain limited costs needed to make specific changes that the government requests. Because I feel it is essential to use fix-price contracts for large Pentagon weapons programs, I supported the chairman's amendment during the markup and I support it now.

Today, as we speak, the Pentagon is negotiating with Lockheed Martin on who will bear the cost of changes to the design and manufacturing of the aircraft that could come down the road as a result of thousands of hours of flight testing that lie ahead. In this sense, the excessive overlap between development and production that is called concurrency is now coming home to roost. The Defense Department quite rightly says it will not sign any contract for the next lot until Lockheed Martin agrees to pay a reasonable share of these concurrency costs, and Lockheed Martin doesn't want to bear the risk of new discoveries.

Let me be clear. I strongly support the Department of Defense position. I think it reflects exactly the congressional view reflected in our markup. As we agree to buy more early production jets while most of the development testing has yet to be done, Lockheed Martin must be held increasingly accountable for cost overruns that come as a result of wringing out necessary changes in the design and manufacturing process for this incredibly expensive aircraft.

How does this legislation affect pending negotiations? It means on the next production lot, Congress expects the Department to negotiate a fixed-price contract that requires Lockheed Martin to assume an increased share of any cost overruns. It requires a ceiling price for that lot that is lower than the previous contract for the last lot purchased. It ensures a shared responsibility for reasonable concurrency cost increases.

In other words, the deal we negotiate on this next production lot must be at least as good, if not better, than the deal we negotiated under the previous one. Otherwise, we are moving in the wrong direction and it will only be a matter of time before the American people and the U.S. Congress lose faith in the F-35 Program, which is already the most expensive weapons program in the history of this country.

I look forward to having the opportunity to address this and other significant national security policies related to detainee policies, cyber operations, Iranian aggression, Pakistan, acquisition reform, and the way we buy space programs and launch services, further limiting the use of fixed-price contracts for procurement, reducing the cost of military health care, counterfeit parts, and the future of our military in the face of major budget reductions.

On the issue of counterfeit parts, I commend the initiative of the chairman to address this critical issue. The proliferation of counterfeit parts threatens the safety of our men and women in uniform, our national security, and our economy. We cannot risk a ballistic missile interceptor missing its target or a helicopter pilot unable to fire his or her weapons or display units failing in aircraft cockpits or any other system failure, all because of a counterfeit electronic part. Nor can we keep affording the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars to fix the systems they penetrate.

Our committee has been conducting an investigation for the past year, and we will have an amendment--there is one already pending--as a result of this outstanding work.

I also plan to offer amendments that will start us on the course of an updated plan for U.S. military forces in the Pacific theater. The current plan to move 8,700 marines, 9,000 family members from their current bases on Okinawa to Guam is now estimated to require spending between $18 and $23 billion on Guam to build up its capabilities as a permanent base. This is an increase of well over $10 billion from the original estimate. I believe the pricetag will continue to rise. As a result, I, along with Chairman Levin and Senator Webb and other colleagues, view this program as unworkable, unaffordable, and an unnecessary strain on the relations between our government and the Government of Japan. Recognizing this strain, both the Armed Services Committee and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs' Committee of the Appropriations Committee have stopped funding Guam

military construction projects until the Department of Defense provides a master plan and considers alternatives that may provide the needed Marine forward presence at much less expense.

Let's face it, we simply are at a level we cannot afford under the present plan. I also understand our relations with Japan are very important in this whole move. We cannot send a signal that America is leaving the area. In fact, I was very pleased to see the agreement the President of the United States signed with the Prime Minister of Australia just yesterday that provides for a joint operating base in Australia. But we must understand the delicacy of our relations with the Government and people of Japan, especially in the time of rising concern about some of the behavior that has been exhibited by the Chinese.

I believe we need to take advantage of this pause to convene a congressional commission of experts in Asian affairs, with multilateral input, to review our national security interests in the Pacific region over the next 30 years and charter that commission to propose a posture for our military forces that will both strengthen our traditional alliances while offering opportunities for cooperative efforts with emerging partners and allies to solidify our mutual interests in the region.

In the face of the doubt about the scope and timing of the Pacific realignments, we also need to ensure that this pause in potentially unnecessary spending is extended in 2012 to the use of defense funds to activities that have no direct impact on military functions or missions on Guam, such as the purchase of civilian school buses and an artifact repository and a mental health clinic on Guam. While these projects may have legitimate value to the Government of Guam to address current needs for citizens of Guam, they simply are not my idea of top defense priorities in the fiscal environment we face.

In addition, despite the efforts of Congress to ban earmarks and special interest projects, this bill contains almost $850 million in authorizations of funding for items and programs not requested by the administration. The full Senate needs to consider the merits of these unrequested spending items and to determine whether they are top defense priorities in today's fiscal environment.

The bill also cuts $330 million for private sector care under the Defense Health Program, based on an assessment of historical underexecution rates. This is the first step in an important progress in helping the Department of Defense control spiralling health care costs. It is the other challenges we face in this bill where we could have and should have done more.

Secretary Panetta, speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center, said:

The fiscal reality facing us means we also have to look at

the growth in personnel costs, which are a major driver of

budget growth and are, simply put, on an unsustainable

course.

The Secretary concludes:

If we fail to address [these costs], then we won't be able

to afford the training and equipment our troops need in order

to succeed on the battlefield.

Providing the Department with the authority to adjust Tricare PRIME enrollment fees based on a realistic index of national health expenditures per capita, as the administration requested, would have been the right thing to do. Instead, this bill limits all future enrollment fee increases to the cost-of-living adjustment for military retired pay.

Military retirees and their families deserve the best possible care and nothing less in return for a career of military service. But we cannot ignore the fact that health care costs will undermine the combat capability and training and readiness of our military if we don't begin to control the cost growth now. Our committee report reflects the desire of the committee to review options for phasing in more realistic future adjustments beginning in fiscal year 2014, and that is exactly what we must do.

I wish to emphasize a point here. I am solemnly aware of the commitment this Nation has made to the men and women who have served in the military regarding health care and benefits. This Nation has made promises for many years and has endeavored to keep those promises. But we are faced with a set of dire circumstances regarding the long-term viability of entitlement programs that threatens to undermine a whole range of promises we have made to every American.

I am also keenly aware that in this unprecedented fiscal crisis facing this country, providing for our national defense is the most important responsibility that our or any government has. It is our Nation's insurance policy. And in a world that is more complex and threatening than I have ever seen, we cannot allow arbitrary budget arithmetic to drive our defense strategy in spending. We have to look at every program to determine what risks we can afford to take without risking the lives and welfare of those brave young Americans who volunteered to serve in the military.

As such, some of the defense cuts being discussed--particularly as a result of sequestration--would do grave harm to our military and our Nation's security. The immediate impact of a sequester, according to Secretary Panetta, who previously served as chairman of the House Budget Committee and Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, could be a 23-percent across-the-board cut to our Nation's defense programs. Shipbuilding and construction contracts would have to be curtailed. Civilian personnel and contractors would have to be furloughed. The end results of these cuts after 10 years would be ``the smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest Air Force in its history.'' The United States would face ``substantial risk of not being able to meet our defense needs.''

Defense spending is not what is sinking this country into fiscal crisis, and if the Congress and the President act on that flawed assumption, they will create a situation that is truly unaffordable-- the decline of U.S. military power and a hollow military. We cannot let this happen. Despite a significant decline in defense spending, the growing threats we face around the world demand a strong and resolute U.S. military that continues as the first line of protection for peace, freedom, justice, and democracy around the world.

I have had the privilege of a long career in public service, but in all my years I don't think I have ever seen a geopolitical environment as complex and as multidimensional as the one we face today. This will only increase in the years to come. The rise of China is one of the most seminal events in world history, but it is not an isolated occurrence. Other nations across the Asia-Pacific--most notably India-- are also growing rapidly and using their newfound wealth to enhance their comprehensive national power, especially new military capabilities.

The challenge for the United States is this: How do we, as a historic Pacific power, use the next few years--despite the necessary cuts that will have to be made in our defense spending--to make smart, strategic investments that set us up to shape the future of the coming Pacific century? That means a more geographically dispersed and operationally resilient regional force posture. It means developing new operational concepts, such as the Defense Department's AirSea Battle concept, which aims to enable us to operate effectively in an anti-access and area- denial environment. It means taking advantage of the many opportunities we face to enhance the capabilities and interoperability of our alliances and partnerships. And perhaps most of all, it means making some difficult and at times painful choices about where we can go, what we do, and what we can do without. We all must take responsibility for these choices.

When we talk about our increasing focus on the Asia-Pacific region, what this does not mean and cannot mean is a lack of commitment to the broader Middle East. After all, the United States still has a capacity to do at least two things at once, and we cannot afford to allow that to change.

The Middle East and north Africa are undergoing perhaps the most consequential period of upheaval since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Governments with long patterns of authoritarian control--some of them our partners--are falling under the popular pressure of millions of citizens who desire dignity, freedom, and opportunity. Our old and dear ally Israel faces a more tumultuous and potentially threatening position than it has in decades. At the same time, new regional

leaders, such as Turkey and Qatar and the UAE, are playing a more confident and assertive role in shaping the events of the region despite the failure of leadership that led us to the full withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq. The success of that country remains a critical national security interest of the United States. We must remain committed to Iraq's success and stability. And all the while, the Iranian regime continues to threaten the security of the region and that of the United States.

Amid all of these complicated and important global trends, it is absolutely vital that the Members of this body be allowed to engage in a fulsome and serious debate about the vital national security interests contained in this bill. I hope there will be a generous opportunity to offer amendments and debate them. I am confident we can do this while still moving diligently and quickly along.

We have given the majority leader the commitment that we will work to ensure Senate consideration of this bill on an expedited basis. This Chamber must have the opportunity to complete this bill and then send it to the conference with the House. We need to have a conference report before the end of the year.

We cannot continue to place critical authorizations in appropriations bills or continuing resolutions because we cannot get the Defense authorization bill done in a timely manner. As an example, this bill includes extensions for several important counternarcotics authorities that expired at the end of fiscal year 2011. The expiration of these authorities has had a direct impact on DOD efforts to combat illicit trafficking networks where proceeds often directly fund the activities of terrorists and other criminal organizations that pose a significant threat to U.S. security interests. Timely passage of the Defense authorization bill will ensure that these counternarcotics missions can continue in places such as Afghanistan, Colombia, and along our southern border.

I, for one, am not proud of the 9-percent approval rating in the performance of Congress determined by various polls. They are right--we need to do more for the American people. I hope we can reverse this downward trend in our approval by tackling the critical national security challenges facing this country in an efficient and effective manner.

I look forward to working with Senator Levin to pass this bill as quickly as possible and get it into law for the benefit of our military and our country. I would ask our colleagues--as we usually do--to get their amendments to us so we can have them considered and have as prompt action as possible on them.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

I think that is the Levin-McCain amendment.

I would like to discuss that amendment. This amendment is a result of the effort made by our committee staff and other members of the committee to identify a very serious problem that can affect our Nation's security; that is, the counterfeiting of critical components that end up in our defense systems--in some cases, helicopters; in some cases, aircraft; in some cases, missiles--literally every high-tech aspect of our Nation's defense systems.

We traced, in hearings under Senator Levin's leadership, the way in which, through different shell companies, these parts that originate in China that are counterfeit end up, through various establishments and then by our major parts suppliers, in our weapons systems. There already have been occasions where there have been system failures, and there have also been situations which have inhibited or reduced readiness and further capabilities. So far, thank God, it has not resulted in any casualties or deaths, but there is very little doubt that this counterfeiting poses a serious threat. According to our findings, some 70 percent of these counterfeit parts come from China.

It has to be stopped. We don't know, to tell my colleagues the truth, if all the parts of this amendment will stop it because it is a huge money-making business, but I think this initial amendment will move us in the right direction to try to bring at least under some control the flow of these counterfeit parts into our Nation's defense.

So I hope that with the help of my colleagues we could adopt this amendment as rapidly as possible and move on to the next one. I know of no one who objects to it. I know there are other members of the committee who were involved in the examination of this situation, and perhaps they would like to come and speak on it. But I would recommend to the chairman that we move on this amendment as quickly as possible.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Is it not also true that as the Senator mentioned, and I wish to emphasize, that Senator Whitehouse's Combating Counterfeiting Military Act is a part of this bill, so that would hopefully satisfy at least the Judiciary Committee? I see the distinguished Senator from Iowa here. He does not intend to address this issue, but I hope we can get the committees of jurisdiction involved in this as quickly as possible. I think this is an issue we should not delay too much longer.

If the chairman will further yield briefly, so we will not voice vote this until we get the signoff of the relevant committees; is that correct?

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is it correct that the U.S. Air Force not only supports this but considers it one of their very high priorities?

In these times of very difficult budgetary decisions that are having to be made, is it not true also the President's budget in 2011 had included a plan to retire 17 C-5As in 2011 and 5 in 2012?

May I ask if any State where these aircraft are presently stationed would lose that mission or whether the older C-5s would convert to new C-17s? Is that pretty much the conclusion the Senator would draw from the Air Force plan?

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, and I hope we can dispose of this amendment. I don't know if a recorded vote would be required by any of the Members, but I hope we can voice vote it.

Is it true we are trying to clear the amendment on both sides at the moment?

I ask the Chair to put it to a vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask for regular order.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Udall, is coming over to propose an amendment and I hope that will happen momentarily and I hope Members will be prepared with other amendments that we can dispose of this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator state his question.

I would say it is important that all voices be heard.

Mr. President, for the sake and the accommodation of the schedules of my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks and whoever the speaker is on the other side designated by the chairman, Senator Ayotte be recognized, and then after a speaker from the other side, if necessary, Senator Chambliss, followed by a speaker on the other side, followed by Senator Graham. I do that because of the time constraints of my colleagues. So I ask unanimous consent and agreement from the Senator from Michigan.

Sure. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

I thank my friend from Michigan. I do that for the convenience of my colleagues because I know there will also be others coming to speak on this important issue.

I wish to point out that the Senator from South Carolina--a member of the National Guard, one of the major authors of the Detainee Treatment Act, and a person who has tried hundreds of cases in military courts-- brings a degree of knowledge and expertise on this issue.

The Senator from New Hampshire served as attorney general of her State for a number of years. She understands the Miranda rights. She has been a student and leader on this issue of detainee treatment.

Also, of course, Senator Chambliss, in his role as the Republican leader on the Intelligence Committee, has a deep and longstanding involvement on detainee issues and the requirements for making our Nation safe.

I will be fairly brief except to say that by any judgment, the President's policy, the President's strategy, the President's movements concerning detainees have been a total and abysmal failure. If the President of the United States would have had a coherent policy that made any sense whatsoever to anyone, we would not have had to act in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Let me point out a couple of facts. The President of the United States campaigned saying that he would close Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The President of the United States also said we would have detainees tried in civilian as well as military courts, and that was a position he has held.

So they had a great idea: Let's take Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to New York City. That was a great idea. Let's have $300 million in security costs while they have a trial of one of the most notorious international criminals. Obviously, that one got the support it deserved.

Thanks to the release policy of Guantanamo, 27 percent of the detainees of Guantanamo who have been released are back in the fight, trying to kill Americans--only this time they have a red badge of courage and a degree of legitimacy because they spent time in Guantanamo Bay. Leaders of al-Qaida have been released from Guantanamo Bay under this administration. They were released under the Bush administration as well, to be fair, but we didn't know at that time how many of them would return to the fight. Some of the leaders in Yemen whom we are speaking about who are now doing everything they can to kill Americans were released from Guantanamo Bay. That can't be viewed as a successful policy. Thirty individuals in Guantanamo today are citizens of Yemen. We can't release them, obviously, back to Yemen.

So now what do we do in order not to have people go to Guantanamo Bay? We are now using U.S. naval ships to detain suspected terrorists. For 60 days, they kept a suspected al-Qaida member on board a ship. Now, when I support the construction of more Navy ships, I have a lot of missions in mind. Serving as a detainment facility for suspected terrorists is not one of them.

The Underwear Bomber was Mirandized 50 minutes into custody, and the Senator from Illinois forgot to mention that several weeks went by before the Underwear Bomber's family came and convinced him to cooperate. Suppose there had been an impending attack on the United States of America during the 50 minutes in captivity before he was Mirandized. Most Americans don't believe al-Qaida members should be Mirandized, as the Senator from New Hampshire, who has had a lot of experience with individuals who have exercised their Miranda rights, will point out.

So the administration policy has been a complete failure. What we are trying to do in this legislation--and we have tried and tried again to satisfy many of the concerns the administration has, including, I would point out, doing certain things such as making this legislation only for 1 year--not permanent but only for 1 year--and we have put into this legislation a national security waiver which is a mile wide. If the President of the United States decides that an individual should be given a trial in civilian court, he has a waiver that all he has to do is exercise. So I am not exactly sure why the administration feels so strongly about a 1-year restriction, with a national security waiver that is a mile wide. We made a couple of other changes at the request of the administration. So I can only assume that

somehow this has some sort of political implications--and I don't say that lightly--as most of the actions concerning this whole detainee issue seem to be driven by.

So there were hearings held in the Senate Armed Services Committee. There was input from different sources. The Senator from Michigan has been fair and objective on this issue, and I am very appreciative of that. The vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee was, I believe, 26 to 0.

We feel very strongly that these provisions in this bill are necessary to keep Americans secure. We want to stop more than one out of every four of these detainees going back into the fight. We want to make sure the military court system applies here to people who are noncitizens and known members of al-Qaida. All of it seems to me to make perfect sense.

So obviously the administration ratcheted up the stakes today with a threat of a veto. I hope they are not serious about it. There is too much in this bill that is important to this Nation's defense.

I yield the floor.

That is not agreeable to me. I would say that they have the ability to walk over here if they are interested.

I would agree to that, but it is not fair.

You know it is not fair. If you have a speaker, bring them up.

I agree.

I think what the chairman meant was, there would be two if----

Yes. I think it is the other side's turn.

Madam President, could I just add my words of appreciation, along with those of the chairman, for Senator Whitehouse's hard work on this very important issue.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I am a little puzzled. Maybe the Senator from South Carolina has a response to this. Perhaps Chairman Levin does. We did give a national security waiver, which is very generous, in that the President just has to certify that it is in the national interest.

Why does he think that would not be acceptable if there were a case where an individual would be held by civilian authorities rather than military authorities?

Everyone we capture may not be as stupid as the couple who waived their Miranda rights. One of them is going to be pretty smart and certainly not waive their Miranda rights. Wouldn't that make sense over time?

If this bill is enacted.

To kind of summarize this issue for our colleagues, we believe an al-Qaida operative is an enemy combatant and, therefore, the assumption should be that that enemy combatant should be under military custody whether it be in the United States or any place else?

I would argue especially in the United States since that poses the greatest threat. However, with our assumption that that person should be held under military custody, we still give a very wide waiver in case there are extenuating circumstances.

In other words, we are saying that we assume an al-Qaida operative, or a suspected al-Qaida operative, is an enemy combatant wherever they are on Earth and, therefore, they should be under military custody unless there is some reason that the President determines otherwise.

The counterargument we are hearing, in summary, is that because that al-Qaida operative is apprehended in the United States, therefore, they should fall under civil authority, thereby negating the assumption that he is an enemy combatant; he is a common criminal. This is a very important principle in this discussion we are having.

How do you treat a suspected al-Qaida terrorist who wants to, in the case of the Underwear Bomber, blow up a plane with 100 some-odd passengers on it? Shouldn't that person be treated as an enemy combatant and, therefore, subject to all of the rules of military people who are under the supervision of the military? Isn't that what we are debating here? The ACLU and the left, with all due respect, feel that person should be--first of all, that al-Qaida operatives should be treated under our criminal system rather than treated as an enemy combatant who wants to do great harm to the United States of America. Is that an accurate description of what we are talking about here?

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Illinois on the Senate floor, whom I know is very heavily involved in this issue. I think we have been debating this amendment now for about 3 hours, at least, and we have had a number of speakers from both sides.

I hope that perhaps we can go ahead and vote on this amendment. I was informed and the chairman was informed by Senator Reid that there is a limited amount of time that can be spent on this bill. I realize how important it is to him, but we have no further speakers right now. I know the Senator from Illinois wishes to speak on it. But would it be agreeable that after we have exhausted the number of speakers that we could go ahead and vote on the amendment?

It is too bad. Let me just say to the Senator from Illinois, this is an important issue, and I understand how important it is to him. But this legislation has a lot to do with defending this country. For the Senator to hold up the entire bill because he doesn't think it has been discussed enough is a disservice to the men and women in the military whose concerns and needs this bill addresses, as well as the needs of the Nation's security.

So we took up this amendment in the belief that we were going to go ahead and debate it and vote on it. So the Senator from Illinois, if we are forced to not be able to complete work on this legislation, I think bears a pretty heavy burden because we have a lot of other provisions in this bill that are also vitally important to the security of this Nation.

We have had spirited debate. I have been involved in this legislation of the national defense authorization bill for a quarter of a century. We have moved forward and we have had debate and we have had votes. I hope we can do that now so we can move forward to other issues.

The Senator from Kentucky is on the Senate floor with an amendment he would like to have debated and voted on, and we have about 100 more. So I say to the Senator from Illinois that after we have had sufficient debate, I hope we can go ahead and vote on the amendment.

Mr. President, just briefly, I would ask the indulgence of the Senator from Oregon. I just would ask the Senator from South Carolina if he would finish the response, and I am sure it would only take him 2 or 3 minutes to finish.

So I ask unanimous consent that Senator Merkley be recognized after the Senator from South Carolina speaks for a couple minutes.

I thank the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Is not the Paul amendment the pending business?

The Merkley amendment is pending.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Paul amendment be the--

OK, that the regular order be--

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Amendment No. 1064

I would just like to say a couple words about the Paul amendment. I would just like to point out, we will still have 16,500 Americans in Iraq for an extended period of time. Now, whether they should be there is the subject of another debate on another day. But to then not be able to do whatever is necessary to protect the lives and safety of those men and women who will continue to serve the country, sometimes in variously difficult circumstances--I think this amendment is unwarranted.

Finally, I would like to ask my colleagues who have further views on the detainee issue if they would come over and add their voices to the debate and discussion because we would like to dispose of this amendment. I respect the desire of the Senator from Illinois that everybody be allowed to speak. We have been now speaking on this single amendment for, I believe, well over 3 hours.

So if there is further discussion on the Udall amendment, I would very much like to have a vote on it so we can bring other important issues before the body.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I understand we have a couple of amendments already from Senator Cardin, No. 1073 and 1188.

We should momentarily.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I would just say that we have the Senator from Maine here. I thought we were going to go through the process of pending amendments before we spoke. I think the Senator's amendment is already pending.

Not at all. It is no big deal at all. Maybe the Senator from Maine could make her amendments pending.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow, Navy LCDR Joe Ruzicka, be granted floor privileges for the duration of debate on the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the resolution before us that would express congressional disapproval of the Federal Communications Commission's move to regulate the Internet. The historically open architecture and free flow of the Internet should not be subject to onerous federal regulation.

As a member and former chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, I have fought to prevent the FCC from unilaterally implementing network neutrality regulations for many years. Last Congress, I introduced the Internet Freedom Act of 2009, which would have prevented the Commission from regulating the network management practices of internet service providers. And this congress, I am a proud cosponsor of S.J. Res. 6.

Skeptical consumers and American entrepreneurs should rightly view these new rules exactly for what they are--another government power grab over a private service provided by a private company in a competitive marketplace. Sadly, and to the detriment of consumers and our national economy, the FCC is the latest in a growing list of Federal agencies under the Obama administration that have chosen government intervention and influence over the free market. In a little less than 3 years, this administration has moved to control and exert more government influence over the auto industry, the energy sector, doctor-patient relationships, and now, through the FCC, it wishes to control high-tech industries by regulating its very core: the Internet.

According to a report recently released by the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee, the Obama administration has imposed 75 new major regulations costing more than $380 billion over 10 years. Moreover, the report continues by pointing out that there are 219 more ``economically significant regulations'' in the works which will cost businesses $100 million or more each year for a minimum cost of $21 billion over 10 years. These new regulations and added costs come in spite of Presidential Executive orders to reduce burdensome regulatory redtape.

The government's politically motivated decision to regulate the Internet, like so many others, will stifle innovation, in turn further slowing our economic turnaround and depressing an already anemic job market. The technology industry is one of our Nation's bright spots and one of the fastest growing job markets. There is little dispute that innovation and job growth in this sector of our economy is a key component to America's future prosperity. Unfortunately, this is not the FCC's first attempt to regulate the Internet. For years, my colleagues and I have introduced legislation and written to the FCC asking the Commission to halt attempts to regulate the Internet unless given clear authority to do so by Congress. The message in our correspondence to the FCC has been crystal clear: Members of Congress do not believe the Commission has the current legal authority to regulate network management practices; therefore, the Commission should not act without express legislative authority. But, like other out-of- control Federal agencies, the FCC has chosen to not listen and continues to act defiantly without legislative authority.

Might I remind the bureaucrats at the FCC that as a government agency, the FCC is not elected by the people only the House, Senate, and the President are duly elected. And, as our Constitution makes clear, the authority to legislate is solely vested in the elected representatives of the American people, not five politically appointed FCC Commissioners. As such, the resolution before us today not only seeks to undo bad policy, it also seeks to restore the constitutional integrity of the Congress. If we fail to pass this resolution of disapproval, our institutional credibility will be further eroded.

Proponents of more Federal regulatory influence over the Internet argue that these rules are needed to enhance regulatory certainty. I would argue that the only uncertainty in the marketplace has been generated by the development of these unauthorized regulations. Further, if there were systemic problems in the Internet marketplace, then why provide arbitrary exemptions to coffee shops, bookstores, and airlines? Why not make these regulations universally applicable? The fact is there is no systemic problem that warrants a regulatory overreach of this

magnitude. After over a decade of practice, the facts are devoid of any global misconduct. These regulations will do more to entice companies to lobby-up, get a lawyer, and seek a regulatory competitive advantage than benefit consumers or our economy.

As the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has recognized, Americans have benefited enormously from the Internet's ``fundamental architecture of openness.'' The light touch regulatory approach toward the Internet that was advanced by previous administrations--both Democratic and Republican alike--has brought Americans Twittering, social networking, low-cost long distance calling, texting, telemedicine, and over 500,000 apps for the iPhone. It also brought us YouTube, HBO GO, Kindle, the Blackberry, and the Palm. The Internet has changed our lives and our economy--forever.

By imposing onerous regulations and discouraging innovation, broadband providers will have less incentive to invest. This disincentive will result in the movement of less capital into the market, which in turn will directly result in fewer jobs created. We should reject this regulatory power grab and demand the Federal Government get out of the way and out of the business of picking winners and losers in our economy. It is for these reasons that I strongly support the resolution before us to keep the Internet free from government control and regulation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of our time.

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

Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 928.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleague, the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Paul, and the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman.

Mr. President, I feel it is very important that we spend some time on this issue. I think all Americans realize we are in almost unprecedented difficult economic times, and that despite efforts that have been made over the now nearly 3 years, our economy has not grown and it has not provided the kind of job growth and opportunity many of us had anticipated.

When we look at previous recessions--and this is a near depression by some calculations--the recovery has been amazingly and agonizingly slow as compared to recoveries from other recessionary periods.

In the view of this Senator, the remedies have, in many respects, made the problem worse rather than better. If we look at some objective criteria, I argue that the situation in America today is worse than it was on January 2009, when this administration came to office. We have had the stimulus package, the Health Care Reform Act, increases in spending in numerous areas, and the Dodd-Frank bill, which was going to fix the regulatory system in this country to prevent any financial institution in America from ever again being too big to fail--in other words, no financial institution would ever need taxpayer dollars to the degree that America's economy would be impacted adversely in case that institution failed.

Well, here we are. Here we are, nearly 3 years later, and unemployment is at 9 percent, even though after the stimulus package was passed all the predictions were that maximum unemployment would be 8 percent and headed down. The recovery has been anemic. In my home State of Arizona, still nearly half the homes are under water. In other words, they are worth less than the mortgage payments the homeowners are required to make.

Working together with my colleague from Kentucky, Senator Paul, and Senator Portman of Ohio, we have put together a series of proposals and ideas that have been generated both within this body and outside of this body, and we believe--we believe with the utmost sincerity--there should be areas in this proposal that we and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle could come to agreement on. We wish to see this entire package. We think it is important in its entirety. There is no doubt in our minds that when you look at the 9-percent approval rating Members of Congress have with the American people, they certainly want to see us do something constructive as well.

I guess I would ask my colleague from Kentucky how he thinks we should have put this package together, what we should have included, and what haven't we included. What is the situation in his home State as far as a need for this kind of legislation?

Before going to my friend from Kentucky, let me add that I talk to large and small businesspeople all over this country, and they all tell me the same thing. They all tell me the same thing. They have no certainty as to what the future holds for them, which then causes them not to invest or to create jobs. Overseas, they are sitting on $1 trillion. Here in the United States they are sitting on a $1\1/2\ trillion and not investing because they do not know when the next regulatory act is going to come down. They do not know when the next regulation is going to be issued. They do not know when the next tax increase is going to occur.

I saw on television the other day that the owner and founder of Home Depot, Kenneth Langone--and he also wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal--said he couldn't start Home Depot today. He couldn't start it today because of the environment that exists. Intended or not--and I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have the most honorable of intentions--the result of all this regulation has been a climate which has restrained investment, which has then restrained and killed job creation and caused this economy to be mired in the doldrums. Obviously, that has had a terrible impact on every-day Americans.

Before my colleague comments, I first want to thank the Senator from Kentucky for the key role he has played in putting this package together, and I hope this is the beginning of our fight for passage of this legislation.

Maybe my friend from Kentucky and I can talk about many of the various provisions in this legislation. There are a lot of provisions that were based on input from outside and inside this body. Some of this, by the way, closely mirrors legislation which has already passed the House of Representatives as well.

We lead off with a requirement for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I was here many years ago when the balanced budget amendment failed by one vote. When you ask the American people if government, and the Congress, shouldn't live under the same constraints they have, they are in total support of that.

I have seen polls--and I wonder if my friend from Kentucky has--that show 80 to 90 percent of the American people support a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution when informed what it is. At the very least we ought to put that up for a vote in this body.

I want to go back a second to the point the Senator from Kentucky made. Congress cannot bind future Congresses. I was here at the time of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was one of the most strict budgetary requirements ever passed by this body. It required automatic spending cuts in the event that budgets were exceeded and excess spending was, obviously, taking place. But one Congress cannot bind future Congresses. So over time--over a very short period of time--the restraints imposed on spending by Gramm-Rudman- Hollings went into the mist and we went back to business as usual.

I will be very candid with my colleague. There are people who have legitimate concerns about a balanced budget amendment and what it would take to get there and the Draconian measures that may be entailed. But I ask, what is the alternative? What is the alternative? Mortgaging our children and our grandchildren's future? I believe currently that stands at a $44,000 debt for every man, woman and child in America. So why don't we in this body have a debate over a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and find out exactly where people are?

At the same time, we have learned over the years that Congresses cannot bind future Congresses, and so that is the problem with enacting automatic spending cuts, or whatever spending cuts or other measures we achieve here. We cannot bind future Congresses, appropriately. So the only way to address this issue is by amending the Constitution of the United States, which I know the Senator from Kentucky and I do not view as a measure taken lightly. I have been opposed to most changes in the Constitution. I think our Founding Fathers got it pretty well right. But this is an issue that I think has to be addressed.

Isn't it a fact that Americans are not only very unhappy because of the economic condition we find ourselves in but also because they perceive an inequity and an inequality in our economy today? In other words, they see financial institutions on Wall Street making record profits and paying record bonuses. They see large corporations that pay no income taxes--none--zero. They see that and then see themselves paying their taxes, the least of which may be withholding taxes or sales taxes or whatever taxes they are still paying. It seems to me that tax reform would address these inequities.

I note that Senator Portman from Ohio is here, and he knows this better than anybody, having been, in his previous incarnation, the head of the Office of Management and Budget. Over the years, we have carved out loophole after loophole and have provided some with a better or special deal. It is a damning indictment of the Congress and the administration that we let it happen, but it is what it is. So we now have major corporations--I would cite General Electric as an example-- that paid no taxes last year. An average citizen--who doesn't have a lobbyist here in Washington and who can't get a carveout or a special loophole for their small business--is paying these taxes.

So how do we resolve that inequity? It seems to me that is accomplished through tax reform. Give people a simplified Tax Code. The Senator from Ohio has some much better ideas about this: three tax brackets, eliminate all but charitable deductions--even put a ceiling on that--and home mortgage deductions, and then the American people would at least believe they are being treated fairly. Today, they do not believe they are being treated fairly. And I am talking about middle-income Americans.

I think statistics confirm that most Americans believe there is a large disparity between the wealthiest and the less well off in America. I would ask my colleague from Ohio to comment, since he knows more about that than I do.

What is the response to the suggestion of bringing the corporate tax rate down to 25 percent, let's say, because we say corporations are taxed too much in America, yet at the same time we also find corporations paying no taxes?

For just a minute, I would like to discuss with the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Ohio that enhanced rescission or what used to be known as line item veto.

The Senator from Ohio once had the misfortune--his reward will be in Heaven, not here on Earth--of being the head of the Office of Management and Budget and saw these appropriations bills come over, and many of them were that thick. Going through line by line, we find these special interests, special deals we call porkbarrel projects which have no justification, which were never debated, which were never discussed, which were never brought to the light of day except maybe occasionally, but certainly it contributed enormously to our debt and deficit.

So he had the option of going to the President of the United States and saying: Veto the whole bill and send it back and it may be overridden or accept these pork-laden, big, thick appropriations bills.

Isn't that a dilemma we should not force the President of the United States to have, that kind of Hobson's choice?

I would say to the Senator from Kentucky, the President probably would veto some items we wouldn't like vetoed because there are some differences in philosophy between ourselves and the President of the United States. But I am willing to take not only that risk but that penalty associated with trying to get elimination of the porkbarrel spending.

We have made some progress, I will admit, in the elimination of some of the ``earmarks,'' but we have a long, long way to go. Frankly, it is a disease I have watched recede a bit over time and then it pops back up. Again, it is something like the balanced budget amendment--it needs to have a permanent fix.

If the scenario takes place as the Senator from Kentucky just pointed out, that all of a sudden everything is decided by members of the Appropriations Committee, then it does deprive the other members of this body of their input into the entire process and takes the authority and responsibility from 100 and puts it in the hands of a few. That seems, to me, a disservice to the people of Arizona whom I represent.

I see the Senator from Washington is here, and I don't want to encroach on her time.

I would just like to say we are going to spend a lot more time today on this issue and this proposal. The American people want change in Washington. They want us to address the concerns and problems they face, and we believe we have a great blueprint for moving forward in that direction. As my friends from Ohio and Kentucky have said, we are eager to sit down with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and discuss at least some of these which we think we can come to agreement on. Maybe our approval rating, if we did so, could climb back up into double digits.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 927

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

That is the pending business before the Senate?

Is there any unanimous consent on speakers?

Mr. President, I will continue to discuss the pending amendment before the Senate, and I would yield such time, without yielding the floor, as the Senator from Tennessee may use.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee. As Senator Corker knows, we had an amendment on the Dodd-Frank bill to do away with Fannie and Freddie over a 5-year period. I think it is obvious that the Senator from Tennessee has done a lot of homework and in-depth examination of this issue. But I think the Senator from Tennessee would agree that what went on with Fannie and Freddie is one of the worst crimes inflicted on the American people all during the 1990s and well into 2000 and which was a major contributor to the housing collapse, which then triggered the financial collapse which we still haven't recovered from. I wonder if the Senator from Tennessee wishes to elaborate.

I think the Senator from Tennessee--and I want to get back to the jobs bill--but I think the Senator from Tennessee would agree, as long as Fannie and Freddie are in existence and have the opportunity to behave in a manner that they did in the past, we risk another housing bubble followed by a housing collapse. That is why I think the Senator's proposal is something that deserves our attention and that of the country, so we don't have a repetition of the pain that the people in Tennessee and Arizona are experiencing today.

Nearly half the homes in my home State of Arizona are under water. They are worth less than their mortgage payments. As long as that is the case, it is going to be very difficult to see a way for a strong economic recovery to take place. I think phasing Fannie and Freddie out is probably one of the key elements in bringing about not only beneficial change--and a number of other things have to happen too--but to prevent the kind of catastrophe that was visited on us in 2008.

I thank the Senator from Tennessee, and he also has been one who is more than willing to take on the tough challenges and issues we face, with a commitment to a bipartisanship that I think we all need. I thank the Senator from Tennessee.

(Mrs. HAGAN assumed the chair.)

Madam President, I wish to inform my colleagues that I have a lot to say about this jobs bill. There is no unanimous consent agreement. I believe this is of transcendent importance. I see the Senator from Minnesota here. I apologize ahead of time, but we only have until tomorrow morning to address this issue. This is a compelling issue for this Nation. I intend to talk for a fairly extended period of time.

For the benefit of my colleagues, this amendment is identical to the Jobs Through Growth Act which was introduced on October 17. I am pleased about joining most of my Republican colleagues--and I wish to highlight the hard work done by my colleagues Senators Paul and Portman in putting this legislation together. In fact, I wish to thank all of the Senators, and some of them bipartisan, who put this jobs bill together. It requires a lot of discussion. There are issues of transcendent importance.

I don't have to tell any American how difficult our economic times are, how slow the recovery has been, if at all, the risk of further recession, and it is time we did something different. I would point out to my colleagues that for 2 years the other party had control of this body and had control of the House of Representatives--for 2 years, until the 2010 election. During that period of time, we passed a stimulus bill, we passed health care reform, we passed other big spending bills, all on the promise that the American economy would recover. It didn't. In fact, by any measurement, things are far worse than they were in January of 2009.

As the President has a jobs bill and the majority leader has put forth legislation as part of that jobs bill, we Republicans have a jobs bill. I know my friends on the other side of the Capitol also agree wholeheartedly with the majority of what we are proposing today. The difference between our plan and theirs is that we want to create jobs through growth and they want to create jobs through government spending, through spending and borrowing and taxing. That doesn't work. What they have proposed amounts to nothing more than another stimulus bill, and we saw that movie before. It added to our debt and our deficit, and we lost jobs.

Today, my colleagues and I are putting forth a plan to create jobs through sound policies. Economic growth is a fundamental part of long- term, sustainable job creation, and that is what our plan offers the American people.

I wish to quote from an article in Forbes magazine by Peter Ferrara entitled ``The GOP Jobs Plan Vs. Obama's.''

Senate Republicans have taken the lead in proposing a jobs

plan alternative to President Obama's in the form of the Jobs

Through Growth Act, led by Senators John McCain, Rand Paul of

Kentucky, and Rob Portman of Ohio. Republicans are remarkably

unified behind these economic and jobs growth ideas, with

House Republicans having already long supported or even

passed several components of that plan.

The 28 components of their program add up to exciting

prospects for finally sparking the long overdue economic

recovery, based on proven economic logic, and proven

experience concerning what works in the real world. Most

important are the proposals for both corporate and individual

tax reform, closing loopholes in return for reducing the

rates.

Lower marginal tax rates are the key to providing the

necessary incentives for economic growth and prosperity. The

marginal tax rate is the rate on the next dollar to be earned

from any investment, enterprise, or productive activity. That

is the key because it determines how much the producer is

allowed to keep out of the next unit of what he or she

produces.

At a 50-percent marginal tax rate, the producer can keep

only half of any increased production. If that rate is

reduced to 25 percent, the portion the producer can keep

grows by 50 percent, from one half to three fourths. That

powerfully increases the incentives for more productive

activity, such as savings, investment, starting new

businesses, expanding businesses, creating jobs,

entrepreneurship, and work.

The Republican Jobs Plan involves closing the special

interest loopholes that enable Obama corporate cronies such

as General Electric to get away with paying no taxes on $14

billion in corporate profits, in return for reducing rates to

internationally competitive levels. The U.S. suffers

virtually the highest corporate tax rate in the

industrialized world, nearly 40 percent, with a 35 percent

federal rate, and another nearly 5 percent in state corporate

rates on average.

Even Communist China enjoys a 25% corporate rate. In the

supposedly mostly socialist European Union, the corporate

rate on average is even lower than that. In formerly

socialist Canada, the federal corporate rate is 16.5%, going

down to 15% next year.

The GOP Plan would reduce the federal 35% rate to 25%,

which is the minimum reduction to restore international

competitiveness for American companies. Note that closing

loopholes may well raise the average corporate rate, on which

Democrats and liberals have focused, but it is the marginal

tax rate that drives the economy. . . .

The GOP Jobs Plan also includes reducing the top personal,

individual income tax rate to 25% as well, in return for

closing loopholes. The Ryan budget already passed by the

House would apply that rate to family incomes over $100,000,

with a 10% rate applying to incomes below. Those rate

reductions would powerfully boost incentives as well, as

proven by the dramatic response to the Reagan tax rate

reductions in the 1980s. . . .

Another component of the plan would eliminate the double

taxation of U.S. corporate profits earned abroad by the U.S.

``worldwide'' corporate tax code, which adds U.S. taxes on

top of the taxes on foreign profits by the host country. The

GOP plan calls for adopting the ``territorial'' tax code of

most of our international competitors, which allows profits

to be taxed in the country where they are earned, and not

again when they are brought home. That would unlock for

reinvestment in the U.S. the $1.4 trillion in American

corporate profits earned overseas that remain parked there to

avoid U.S. double taxation.

The GOP Jobs Plan also recognizes the enormous problem of

excessive, runaway regulation, which increases the cost of

production, and so further discourages it. Reducing such

costs would consequently increase production, economic

growth, and jobs.

Step one in the plan to reduce such regulatory burdens is

to repeal Obamacare, with its employer mandate adding to the

cost of each job by requiring employers to buy more

expensive, politically driven health insurance coverage for

every employee. That repeal would also reduce future taxes

and spending by trillions as well.

Further critical relief would result from the GOP Jobs Plan

plank to repeal Dodd-Frank, which is threatening to squelch

credit for businesses and consumers essential to jobs and

recovery. The GOP proposal cites research showing that higher

costs for financial services resulting from Dodd-Frank would

cost the economy nearly 5 million jobs by 2015.

Another critical area of overregulation is energy. The

Republican program would require the Interior Department to

move forward in order to free up leasing and development of

drilling on public lands onshore. It also eliminates EPA foot

dragging on air permits necessary for offshore drilling, and

removes EPA authority for unnecessary and burdensome

greenhouse gas regulation altogether. This deregulation would

ensure a steady supply of low cost energy, essential to

booming economic growth.

Also in the proposal is the REINS (Regulations from the

Executive In Need of Scrutiny) Act, which would require

Congressional approval of all major federal regulations

imposing more than $100 million a year in costs. This will

reestablish the original Congressional check on Executive

power, and democratic accountability for regulatory burdens,

so politicians can no longer hide behind faceless bureaucrats

to evade public scrutiny for regulatory drains on our freedom

and prosperity. This would provide an important solution to

excessive regulatory burdens and costs across the board.

The Tea Party will favor the plan's plank for a Balanced

Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would include

necessary tax and spending limitations in the Constitution.

Also included is a statutory line item veto, giving the

President more power to cut spending. Reduced government

spending, deficits and debt will reduce the government drain

on resources in the private economy needed to create jobs and

growth.

Finally, the plan even includes a provision for free trade,

giving the President renewed fast track authority to

negotiate further trade agreements eliminating foreign trade

barriers and opening new markets for American goods. For

nearly 3 years, President Obama failed to even send to

Congress free trade agreements President Bush had negotiated

with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. But that didn't stop

him from political rhetoric blaming Congress for failing to

pass them, though Congress did approve them within weeks of

Obama finally submitting them. That abusive rhetorical style

veers into dishonorable.

The GOP program is an exciting, comprehensive strategy for

creating another generation-long economic boom. It includes

all the components of Reaganomics under Congressional

control--lower tax rates, deregulation, and restrained

spending. Besides the economic logic of each of these

components discussed above, the experience with Reaganomics

proves the plan will work within a year or so of adoption to

get the economy booming again.

After Reaganomics was adopted in 1981, the economy took off

on a 25-year economic boom in late 1982, what Art Laffer and

Steve Moore have rightly called the greatest period of wealth

creation in the history of the planet. Twenty million new

jobs were created in the first 7 years alone, even while an

historic inflation was tamed. American economic growth during

the 80s was the equivalent of adding the third largest

economy in the world, West Germany, to the American economy.

By contrast, Obama's Jobs Plan is recycled, brain dead,

Keynesian economics already tried and failed throughout the

Obama Administration, and all around the world for decades

before wherever it has been tried. It is about half the size

of Obama's nearly one trillion dollar 2009 so-called stimulus

plan, but contains otherwise the same policies. That 2009

stimulus didn't stimulate anything except runaway government

spending, deficits and debt.

Part of the jobs plan is devoted to increased government

spending on supposed infrastructure, which only recalls the

laughable ``shovel ready'' jobs of Obama's 2009 stimulus

(even Obama has joked about it). Another part is increased

spending to bail out spendthrift Democrat states, which Obama

calls hiring more teachers, firemen and cops (a state and

local government function, not a federal function).

But economic growth is not based on increased government

spending, a fallacy which Wall Street Journal senior

economics writer Steve Moore has rightly labeled ``tooth

fairy'' economics. That is because the money for

such spending needs to come from somewhere, and so drains

the private sector to the extent of such increased

government spending, leaving no net effect in any event.

What drives economic growth and prosperity is incentives

for increased production, as Reaganomics proved. Obama's

assault on such incentives is why trillions are sitting on

corporate and bank balance sheets, and America is suffering a

capital strike and capital flight. The Occupy Wall Street

protestors in threatening property and profits are just

further undermining incentives and contributing to that

capital strike and capital flight, which only contributes

further to extended and increased unemployment.

The other half of the jobs plan includes temporary payroll

tax cuts, which are a continuation and expansion of temporary

payroll tax cuts Obama convinced the December, 2010 lame duck

Congress to adopt for this year. But such temporary tax

reductions do not stimulate economic growth and jobs either,

as permanent cuts and incentives are necessary for permanent

jobs. That was just proved by the failure of this year's

temporary payroll tax cut to promote the long overdue

recovery.

But even worse than the 2009 stimulus is that this current

half stimulus echo is accompanied by Obama's proposal for

$1.5 trillion in permanent tax increases. That now includes

Obama's support for a 5% millionaire's surtax. Those

permanent increases only further reduce incentives for

production, and only contribute further to economic downturn

and stagnation under any economic theory.

Those tax increases, moreover, would come on top of all the

tax increases Obama has already enacted under current law for

2013, which major media institutions as well as most of the

public are unaware. In that year, the Obamacare tax increases

go into effect, and the Bush tax cuts expire, which Obama has

refused to renew for the nation's job creators, investors,

and more significant small businesses. Under those tax

increases, the top tax rates for every major federal tax,

except the corporate income tax, already virtually the

highest in the industrialized world, with no relief in sight.

. . .

In sharp contrast to Reaganomics, such Keynesian

Obamanomics has already failed miserably to generate a timely

recovery consistent with the history of the American economy.

Before this last recession, since the Great Depression,

recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months,

with the longest previously lasting 16 months. But here we

are 46 months after the last recession started, and still no

real economic recovery, with unemployment still [at] 9%, the

longest period of unemployment that high since the Great

Depression.

Moreover, it cannot be said this is because the recession

was so bad, as the experience in America has been the deeper

the recession the stronger the recovery. Based on these

historical precedents, we should be nearing the end of the

second year of a booming economy right now. In this crisis,

for Obama to now just advocate more of the same, with only

new, warmed over rhetoric, is a complete abdication of

leadership. Moreover, at this point, outdated economists

still peddling hoary Keynesian fallacies should be subject to

civil liability for fraud.

As I explain in my new publication just out this week from

Encounter Books, ``Obama and the Crash of 2013,'' more likely

than recovery is a renewed double dip recession in 2013, with

all the tax rate increases, regulatory burdens building to a

crescendo, rising interest rates by then, etc. resulting from

Obamanomics. Congressional Republicans should just tell Obama

thanks, but no thanks, on his Jobs Plan, and pass their own

plan proven to work. Then they can insist he explain to the

public why he stands in the way.

It is a very interesting article there in Forbes, and it is a fairly long one, but I think it puts in adequately the argument for adoption of this legislation, but it also points out one of the results.

I would point out, in Investors Business Daily, an editorial entitled ``Better in Rwanda.'' It says:

The U.S. has slipped again in world rankings that assess

the ease of starting a new business. If we're to bring down

our stubbornly high unemployment rate, this trend has to be

reversed.

According to the World Bank's ``Doing Business 2012''

report, America is 13th among 183 countries ranked in the

``Starting a Business'' category. In the 2011 report, the

U.S. ranked 11th. The year before, it was No. 8.

In 2009, the U.S. was ranked No. 6. It was fourth in 2008

and third in 2007.

These are not Republican documents. This is not a Republican assessment. This is the assessment according to the World Bank: that doing business in the United States of America has gone from the third best country to do business in, in 2007, to 13th in 2012.

This is ample and adequate proof that we have borrowed too much, we have taxed too much, we have issued so many regulations that we have people such as Mr. Langone, the founder of Home Depot--who I will quote from in a minute--who says that today he could not start Home Depot all over again, one of the great success stories, by the way, in recent years.

In the 2012 ranking, the U.S. trailed such job creators as

Macedonia, Georgia, Rwanda, Belarus, Saudi Arabia, Armenia

and Puerto Rico, which are ranked No. 6 through No. 12.

Big companies aren't usually founded as multinational

corporations. Most begin as small businesses. And it's small

businesses--which employ more than half of the domestic

nongovernment workforce--that generate the bulk of new

employment opportunities.

From this article:

Our own research shows that small businesses create more

than 80% of the new jobs in this country. This isn't some

fantasy we've cooked up. It's been confirmed in the New York

Times by reporter Steve Lohr, who wrote in September that

it's an ``irrefutable conclusion that small businesses are

this country's jobs creators. Two-thirds of net new jobs are

created by companies with fewer than 500 employees,'' Lohr

wrote, ``which is the government's definition of a small

business.''

But job creation is more than a function of size. Lohr

cites a National Bureau of Economic Research report that says

the age of a business is the biggest factor. ``Start-ups,''

says John C. Haltiwanger, a coauthor of the study and an

economist at the University of Maryland, ``are where the job

creation really actually occurs.''

Yet it's the small and new businesses that are being choked

by government policy. The capital gains tax rate on

investments held more than a year, Lohr wrote, directly

impacts angel investors' role in providing seed capital for

startups. This is a rate that the administration wants to

hike from 15% to 20% on households earning more than $250,000

a year.

That's just a single instance of poor public policy. There

are many more in the 160,000 pages of federal regulations and

in the web of state and local rules that squeeze small

businesses and start-ups so tightly that they simply cannot

hire. Until this burden is lifted, America's jobs problem is

not going to get any better.

Quite an indictment that the United States of America, the beacon of liberty and hope and freedom, an example to all the world, has gone from the third best place to do business, to start a business in the world, now to No. 13 in just 5 short years.

So what is the result? I would point out to my colleagues that a person such as Mr. Langone, whom I have watched on television on several occasions, certainly an outspoken individual to say the least, says he could not start his business again under the present environment.

I quote from a Wall Street Journal article, October 15, 2010, entitled, ``Stop

Bashing Business, Mr. President,'' by Ken Langone.

The subtitle is, ``If we tried to start The Home Depot today, it's a stone cold certainty that it would never have gotten off the ground.''

I quote from his article.

If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of

onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated--

Mr. Langone is writing to the President in this--

If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of

onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it's a

stone cold certainty that our business would never get off

the ground, much less thrive.

It is quite an indictment. He goes on to say:

Rules against providing stock options would have prevented

us from incentivizing worthy employees in the start-up

phase--never mind the incredibly high cost of regulatory

compliance overall and mandatory health insurance. Still

worse are the ever-

rapacious trial lawyers.

He goes on to say:

I stand behind no one in my enthusiasm and dedication to

improving our society and especially our health care. It is

worth adding that it makes little sense to send Treasury

checks to high net-worth people in the form of Social

Security. That includes you, me and scores of members of

Congress. Why not cut through that red tape, apply a basic

means test to that program to make sure that money actually

reduces federal national spending and isn't simply shifted

elsewhere.

So it is a very interesting article. He says:

A little more than 30 years ago, Bernie Marcus, Arthur

Blank, Pat Farrah and I got together and founded The Home

Depot. Our dream was to create a new kind of home-

improvement center catering to do-it-yourselfers. The concept

was to have a wide assortment, a high level of service, and

the lowest pricing possible. We opened the front door in

1979, also a time of severe economic slowdown. Yet today,

Home Depot is staffed by more than 325,000 dedicated, well-

trained and highly motivated people offering outstanding

service and knowledge to millions of consumers.

Then he goes on to say:

If we tried to start Home Depot today, under the kind of

onerous regulatory controls that you have advocated, it's a

stone cold certainty that our business would never get off

the ground, much less thrive.

A man by the name of Jim McNerney is the CEO of Boeing Company. He writes: ``What Business Wants From Washington.'' Again, I quote from October 31, 2011. Mr. McNerney says:

America works best when American business and government

complement one another: Business plays the vital role in

economic expansion and job creation, while government

oversees the environment in which businesses can innovate

and compete. This approach fueled prosperity for

generations and produced the world's largest and most

powerful economy. We seem far adrift of that ideal today.

The regulatory climate is a perfect example. A tsunami of

new rules and regulations from an alphabet soup of federal

agencies is paralyzing investment and increasing by tens

of billions of dollars the compliance costs for small and

large businesses.

No one wants to discard truly meaningful public safety or

environmental regulations. But what we face is a jobs crisis

and regulators charged with protecting the interests of the

people are making worse the problem that is hurting them

most. Regulatory relief in the energy sector alone could

create up to two million new jobs and we won't have to borrow

a penny to pay for it.

He goes on to talk about the supercommittee. He says the White House and Congress should build on that momentum and ``enact comprehensive pro-growth tax reform that benefits everyone; proceed with regulatory reform; and reform and restructure existing entitlement programs.''

If Washington can once again find the ability to mix

democracy and effective governing, American business will

once again unleash America's economic potential.

So Mr. McNerney, in his article, reflects the views of everybody I talk to, small businesses and large. They want tax relief. They want regulatory relief. In fact, what they want more than anything else is some kind of certainty about the economic future and the playing field in which they will have to compete. Will there be increasing regulatory burden? Will there be a raise in taxes, as is facing us in 2013? Can we have a tax code they can understand and comprehend that is fair to one and all? Can they unleash their savings accounts and the money they have kept in reserve and invest and hire with some confidence that there will be a return on that investment, that they will succeed for themselves and their children?

That is what this jobs bill is all about. That is what we are trying to get done. This is an attempt to look at the problems America faces today, which, by the way, do spill over onto our national security problems, as the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff pointed out.

So it affects all of America. It hurts us in so many ways. Yet we sit here, and apparently the select committee, the supercommittee as it is called, is at some kind of gridlock. We sit here today with one amendment here, one amendment here, back and forth, and then run right out to the media and attack each other for being uncooperative and why are we not more congenial and why are we not willing to compromise.

Well, I will plead guilty for perhaps not being willing to compromise on some issues because some issues are a matter of principle. We do not compromise principle, I have found out. But we do come forth with proposals and try to find those on which we can agree. I do not know why we do not agree on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Every State, every mayor, every city councilman, every county supervisor, every one of them is faced with the first problem of a balanced budget.

Why should we exempt ourselves? Why can't we together work out the details concerning a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? The overwhelming majority of Americans would heave a sigh of relief if we ever did that because then they would know we would be more careful stewards of their tax dollars. It seems to me we could move forward with that.

Enhanced rescission authority. I believe the President of the United States should have enhanced rescission authority, what we used to know of as the old line-item veto, taking those lines in appropriations bills he objects to and vetoing them--and I will not go through the complications of how it is done--but have them taken out, with certain restrictions as to how many times he could do it. Then, like every Governor--not every Governor but most Governors in America have--to line item out, without having to veto the entire appropriations bill, sometimes maybe even causing damage to our ability to govern.

I am well aware if we voted for an enhanced rescission by the Congress of the United States, signed by the President, the President would probably line-item veto some programs that I would object to him doing so. I am willing--more than willing--to take that pain as opposed to today where we continue to have appropriations bills which in many cases people have not read or truly understand.

Tax reform. Every place I go people talk to me about the need for tax reform. I have yet to meet an American who understands completely the Tax Code. I have yet to meet an American who believes our Tax Code is fair. I have yet to meet an American who says: If you would just give me three tax brackets, a very small number of deductions, and then I could fill out my tax return on a post card or in the case of some of the countries--the Baltic countries that used to be under the Soviet Union--on my computer. Then you would see greater compliance, you would see less of a need for the IRS, and you would see Americans more than willing to pay their fair share if they believed the system was fair.

It is not fair when major corporations and individuals pay no taxes because they have bright lawyers, and they take advantage of all of the loopholes and deductions they have been able to get put into the Tax Code over the years with the help of very powerful lobbyists in this town.

Repatriation and territorial reform. The Presiding Officer, the Senator from North Carolina, and I have proposed a pretty simple proposal; that is, the $1.4 trillion that is now sitting overseas because they will not bring it back because of the tax situation; that we could bring that money home, and we could provide a permanent incentive with that for repatriating these foreign earnings.

I say to my friend from North Carolina, I have been kind of astonished at some of the resistance to this where people say it would not do any good. Help me out. It would not do any good to bring $1.4 trillion back to the United States of America? Do we really believe that would just go in peoples' wallets and purses? Of course not.

The Senator from North Carolina and I have talked to too many people, corporation executives, who have said: Yes, I will not only create jobs and invest that money, but I will give you a plan. I will give a plan that we will implement with that money--that IBM or Boeing or other major corporations that have this money parked overseas.

They are enthusiastic about it. Yet, unbelievably, there are people who argue that it would have no effect whatsoever on our economy. It is hard to understand.

Now we obviously get into ObamaCare. I noticed that the latest polling showed, I believe, that some 54 percent of the American people want the health care law repealed. Thirty-some percent still support it. The fact is that over time, as Americans learn more and more about the health care law we passed, they have become more and more opposed to it. They are angry because the whole purpose of the health care act was to provide all Americans with health care that is affordable but also to bend the curve of the inflation of health care in America because we all know the present inflation of health care is unsustainable. It is unsustainable. Yet what has been the result since the passage? Inflation of health care continues to go up; the cost of health care, whether it be to the men and women serving or average citizens, continues to go up, and it has to stop. We need to look at that and look at medical malpractice reform. In Texas today, they passed medical malpractice reform, and it seems to work, and most people are happy with it.

The Dodd-Frank bill--it still is stunning to me that we passed this regulatory reform bill; they called it a financial takeover that the Dodd-Frank bill is commonly known as--the whole purpose of it was that we would have legislation that would ensure that never again would any institution be too big to fail because the taxpayers never again should have to bail out any financial institution. Is there anybody who believes that these huge institutions on Wall Street haven't grown bigger, that they are not bigger to fail than they used to be? The fact is that they are. What did we get? We got a whole bunch of regulations and different bureaucracies, some of them less accountable than others, and obviously a damper on some of the financial activities.

We need to make sure no financial institution is too big to fail. We need to assure the American people that never again will they suffer the way they have during this period of time because of the malfeasance of others. Unfortunately, the Dodd-Frank bill did not achieve that goal.

We need to have a moratorium on regulations. Senator Johnson of Wisconsin has a bill that prohibits any Federal agency from issuing new regulations until the unemployment rate is equal to or less than 7.7 percent. Senators Snowe and Coburn have introduced legislation that is part of this Freedom from Restrictive Excessive Executive Demands and Onerous Mandates Act, which strengthens and streamlines the regulatory act by requiring regulators to include ``indirect economic impacts'' in small business analyses, requiring periodic review and sunset of existing rules, and expanding business review panels as a requirement for all Federal agencies instead of just the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

I notice my colleague, Dr. Barrasso, from Wyoming on the floor, who knows more about programs in the health care reform act. I will try to be polite and refer to it today as the health care reform act.

I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Wyoming.

Does Senator Barrasso believe or could he tell us, perhaps, the effects on the cost of health care since passage of this legislation and perhaps what we need to do to really fix health care in America, which we all agree needs to be fixed?

I ask the Senator this on two other issues. One issue was not included in the health care reform act, which is the issue of medical malpractice, which the Senator, Dr. Barrasso, has had a lot of personal experience with. The other is this--which I think is symptomatic of really the way we cobbled this whole thing together, which is that we have now found a provision in the bill that cannot be and will not be enforced, the so-called CLASS Act.

Would it not also disturb the predictions as far as the fiscal impact of the CLASS Act as well?

Can we return just for a minute to medical malpractice reform because many people, when you talk about that, believe there has to be appropriate compensation when malpractice occurs. We all know malpractice occurs, so we don't want the innocent victims of medical malpractice--however it occurs in the health care scenario--to not be able to get just compensation in the case of malpractice on the part of the caregiver.

I thank the Senator. I appreciate his unique expertise in the health care issues that are still transcendent in this country. I thank him for his enormous contributions.

I want to continue with some of this legislation.

The Unfunded Mandates Accountability Act, which was originally an act of Senator Portman's, requires agencies specifically to address the potential effect of new regulations on job creation and to consider market-based and nongovernmental alternatives to regulation, broadens the scope of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to include rules issued by independent agencies and rules that impose direct or indirect economic costs of $100 million or more, requires agencies to adopt the least burdensome regulatory options and achieves the goal of the statute authorizing the rule and creates a meaningful right to judicial review of an agency's compliance with the law. If there is anything that has grown out of control, in the view of this Member, it is government regulations. First, we had a trickle, but now it is a flood, of government regulations, which then impose additional costs, which then take money away from job creation and, in particular, small business people. This is where accountability of the unfunded mandates is, at the very least, called for.

Senator Barrasso may want to discuss this next provision. The Government Litigation Savings Act reforms the Equal Access to Justice Act by disallowing the reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs to well-funded special interest groups that repeatedly sue the Federal Government. The bill retains Federal reimbursements for individuals, small businesses, veterans, and others who must fight in court against wrongful government action by eliminating taxpayer-funded reimbursement of attorneys' fees for wealthy special interest groups. The legislation helps eliminate repeated procedural lawsuits that delay permitting exploration and land management.

If the Senator would like to comment.

I thank my friend.

Included in this package is the Employment Protection Act, introduced by Senator Toomey. It requires the EPA to analyze the impact on unemployment levels and economic activity before issuing any regulation, policy statement, guidance document, endangerment finding or denying any permit. Each analysis is required to include a description of estimated job losses and decreased economic activity due to the denial of a permit, including

any permit denied under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Senator Johanns has contributed the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, which prevents the EPA from regulating dust in rural America while still maintaining protections to public health under the Clean Air Act.

The National Labor Relations Board reform was introduced by Senator Graham of South Carolina. From backdoor card check, to threatened jobs in South Carolina, the out-of-control National Labor Relations Board is paying back union officials at the expense of worker rights and jobs. To create more jobs, legislation prohibiting the NLRB from stopping new plants and legislation to prevent coercive, quick-snap union elections should be passed.

I am sure my colleagues are very well aware of the unprecedented and incredible action by the NLRB that basically prohibited a major aircraft manufacturing company from locating in the State of South Carolina, where it is a right-to-work State--an unbelievable overreach by a Federal bureaucracy--which still staggers the imagination, but it also shows that elections have consequences.

There is also the Government Neutrality and Contracting Act. It repeals the President's order requiring government-funded construction projects to only use union labor. This would reduce costs of Federal jobs projects by as much as 18 percent. That was Senator Vitter's contribution.

Senator Shelby has introduced the Financial Regulatory Responsibility Act, which requires financial regulators to conduct consistent economic analysis on every new rule they propose, provide clear justification for the rules, and determine the economic impacts of proposed rulemakings, including their effects on job growth and net job creation.

With so many of these pieces of legislation I am talking about, a lot of Americans might say: Don't we do that already? Unfortunately, we don't.

Senator Roberts has the Regulatory Responsibility for our Economy Act, which codifies and strengthens President Obama's January 18 Executive order that directs agencies within to review, modify, streamline, expand or repeal those significant regulatory actions that are duplicative, unnecessary, overly burdensome or would have significant economic impacts on Americans.

Congressman Gibbs, over on the House side, has the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, which eliminates a new duplicate EPA regulation that will cost millions of dollars to implement without providing additional environmental protection.

On domestic job energy promotion we have, from Senator Vitter, the Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy, and Deficit Reduction Act that would require the Department of the Interior to move forward with offshore energy exploration and create a timeframe for environmental and judicial review.

Senator Murkowski has included the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, which eliminates the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the EPA's decisionmaking process for air permits, which is delaying energy exploration in the Alaska and outercontinental shelf. It will create over 50,000 jobs and produce 1 million barrels of oil a day.

There is no one in this body who knows as much about these issues as the distinguished Senator from Alaska.

Senator Barrasso again has brought forward the American Energy and Western Jobs Act. The bill streamlines the preleasing, leasing, and developmental process for drilling on public land and requires the administration to create goals for American oil and gas production.

The Mining Jobs Protection Act by Senators McConnell, Inhofe, and Paul requires the EPA to use or lose their 404 permitting review authority. Under this bill, the EPA will have 60 days to voice concerns about a permit application or the permit moves forward. Any concerns voiced by the EPA would need to be published in the Federal Register within 30 days.

Senator Inhofe has contributed the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.

The Repeal Restrictions on Government Use of Domestic Alternative Fuels Act would repeal section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which prohibits Federal agencies from contracting for alternative fuels such as coal-to-liquid fuel.

The Public Lands Job Creation Act of Senator Heller eliminates the burdensome and unnecessary delay in approval of projects on Federal lands by allowing the permitting process to move forward unless the Department of the Interior objects within 45 days. This will streamline the permitting process for domestic energy and mineral production on BLM lands without compromising environmental analysis.

Senator McConnell has introduced the renew trade promotion authority, which would provide the President with fast-track authority to negotiate trade agreements that will eliminate foreign trade barriers and open new markets for American goods.

We all know trade promotion authority is vital to the eventual enactment of free-trade agreements. I am incredibly depressed that we would not have renewed this trade promotion authority along with the passage of the long overdue free-trade agreements we just passed through this body.

The President and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have become fond of saying Republicans have no plan for creating jobs and putting America back on a path to fiscal prosperity. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have just laid out in the plan before us today, we have compiled many job-creating measures offered by our colleagues in the Senate.

Furthermore, since January, our colleagues in the House of Representatives have passed at least 22 job-creating bills. Guess how many of the bills that were passed by the House of Representatives have gotten consideration in the Senate. Five.

Similar to our plan, our colleagues in the House have focused a great deal of attention on empowering small businesses and reducing government barriers to job creation. Here are just a few of the commonsense, job-creating measures passed by the House, none of which have been considered by the Senate: review of Federal regulations, reducing regulatory burdens, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, Consumer Financial Protection and Soundness Improvement Act, Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, Transparency and Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act, Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act, and the EPA Regulatory Relief Act.

So the next time we hear the President of the United States say Republicans are blocking or have failed to take up or failed to bring forward a proposal, we have proposals, and we have measures that have been passed by the House. The proposals in this jobs plan bill deserve the consideration of this body.

We need to prove to the American people that we will do everything we can to eliminate the waste of their hard-earned dollars. Enacting an enhanced rescission authority to give the President statutory line-item veto authority to reduce wasteful spending is an issue we have been looking at for years.

Why do we need to grant the President enhanced rescission line-item veto authority? According to a database created by Taxpayers Against Earmarks, washingtonwatch.com, and Taxpayers for Common Sense, for fiscal year 2011, Members requested over 39,000 earmarks totaling over $130 billion. Just last December, we were forced to consider, at the very last minute, an Omnibus appropriations bill that was 1,924 pages long and contained the funding for all 12 of the annual appropriations bills for a grand total of $1.1 trillion. In the short time I had to review that massive piece of legislation before it was brought to the floor, I identified approximately 6,488 earmarks, totaling nearly $8.3 billion.

We need an enhanced rescission act.

Thankfully, the massive omnibus was not enacted. But these earmarks, and the process by which they make their way into spending bills, are evidence that the system is badly broken and in need of reforms.

I have more to say, and I have taken too much time in the eyes of many of my colleagues, perhaps, and I want to apologize to any of my colleagues who had planned to speak on the floor and have been preempted by my long remarks. But I feel that we have an obligation to the American people to address the issues that are of greatest concern and the greatest amount of

pain to them today, and that is jobs and the economy--jobs and the economy.

I care a lot about our national security challenges and I care a lot about what is going in the world. But when I go home and a woman stands up at a townhall meeting with her two children and says, I don't have a job and I am being kicked out of my home next week; when we have people who are being thrown out of their houses, and over half of the homes in my home State of Arizona are under water--in other words, worth less than the mortgage payments they are required to make--when we have chronic unemployment that in some cases, such as down in Yuma, AZ, is well into double digits, then we have to get going on getting some jobs and the economy back on the right track.

I want to repeat--and I don't mean to be confrontational with my colleagues, but we tried for 2 years, when the other side had the majority in the House and the Senate and they had passed major pieces of legislation that were advertised to get our economy back on track-- they didn't--can't we try something different? Can't we try the kinds of things that have brought us out of other recessions? Can't we ask our colleagues in the Senate to create a simplified tax system that the Heritage Foundation says, by lowering the corporate rate to 25 percent, the number of jobs in the United States would grow on an average of 581,000 annually from 2011 to 2020? Can't we look at this regulatory system, which has put such a damper on small businesses and large? Can't we give American people a break from the flood of new regulations that continues to come down and is a major factor in this environment of uncertainty amongst businesses small and large?

The approval rating of the American people of Congress is now, the latest poll I saw, 9 percent. That is something that I joke about, but it is also something that grieves me a great deal because I believe the overwhelming majority of the Members of Congress are here and are dedicated to serving their constituents in the most honorable fashion and in the best possible way they can, according to their values and their principles.

But it is a fact that the American people are very angry and they are very upset. One of the major reasons is, of course, they have not seen progress in the economy. And that is very understandable. We are now seeing these Occupy Wall Street people. The tea partiers will probably be rejuvenated. We are seeing expressions of anger and frustration all over the country, and it is unfortunate. But I believe that a couple of things are going to happen unless we act in a more efficient fashion that addresses the concerns of the American people, and that is I believe you will see the rise of a third party in this country, and I think also you will see greater and greater manifestations of opposition to business as usual here in Washington.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I am more than eager to sit down with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and come together particularly on some of the issues that clearly we have stated on both sides we are in favor of.

Again, my apologies to my colleagues whose time I may have preempted on the floor. But I think this issue of jobs, which we will be voting on tomorrow, is one that deserved more than passing attention.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to speak about an issue that I and most Americans, I believe, find extremely troubling and one I have been seeking to have properly addressed for many years now; namely, the outright corruption and blatant abuse of the American taxpayer that has been taking place at the hands of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for decades.

Since they were placed in conservatorship in 2008, the two government-sponsored enterprises--GSEs; i.e., supported by the taxpayers--have soaked the American taxpayer for nearly $170 billion in bailouts. Just this morning, the Associated Press reported that Freddie Mac has now requested an additional $6 billion to continue their, so far in my view, failed efforts. I quote from the Associated Press:

Government-controlled mortgage giant Freddie Mac has

requested $6 billion in additional aid after posting a wider

loss in the third quarter. Freddie Mac said Thursday that it

lost $6 billion, or $1.86 share, in the July-September

quarter. That compares with a loss of $4.1 billion, or $1.25

a share, in the same quarter of 2010. The government rescued

McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac and sibling company Fannie

Mae in September 2008 after massive losses on risky mortgages

threatened to topple them. Since then, a Federal regulator

has controlled their financial decisions. Taxpayers have

spent about $169 billion to rescue Fannie and Freddie, the

most expensive bailout of the 2008 financial crisis. The

government estimates it will cost at least $51 billion more

to support the companies through 2014, and as much as $142

billion in the most extreme case.

Freddie and Washington-based Fannie own or guarantee about

half of all U.S. mortgages, or nearly 31 million home loans

worth more than $5 trillion. Along with other federal

agencies, they backed nearly 90 percent of new mortgages over

the past year. The two mortgage giants buy home loans from

banks and other lenders, package them into bonds--

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So here we are. We have spent $169 billion and now they are asking for $6 billion more. What do we find out? Fannie and Freddie now will dole out big bonuses. I am not making this up.

Quoting now from a Politico article:

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.

I might add, these huge bonuses and packages that were given to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raines, and many others--and there is clear evidence of this--was done by cooking the books. Yet not a one of them has been held accountable in any way, shape or form.

Continuing to quote from the article:

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's CEO

Michael Williams, for example, got $2.37 million in

performance bonuses.

That was after the taxpayers paid $160 billion. That is why they are on the hook for another $6 billion and God knows how much more. So we are giving these individuals $900,000 a year in salary, millions of dollars in bonus pay, and who in the world is the Federal Housing Finance Agency to award these bonuses?

FHFA's Acting Director Edward DeMarco--and I must admit to my colleagues I had not heard of Mr. DeMarco--told Congress last year that the managers who were at the helms of the mortgage companies during the market collapse were dismissed but also argued that generous pay helps lure ``experienced, qualified'' executives able to manage upward of $5 trillion in mortgage holdings.

Whatever happened to asking patriotic Americans to come and serve and help homeowners out of this crisis? Whatever happened to patriotic Americans who would serve and help the nearly half of all homeowners in my State of Arizona whose mortgages are underwater?

DeMarco told lawmakers he is concerned that suggestions to apply a Federal pay system to non-Federal employees could put the companies in jeopardy of mismanagement--could put the companies in jeopardy of mismanagement--and result in another taxpayer bailout. They just asked for $6 billion more. He said the compensation packages at Fannie and Freddie are part of the plan to return them to solvency while reducing costs to the taxpayers.

A March report by FHFA's inspector general--obviously ignored by Mr. DeMarco--said the agency ``lacks key controls necessary to monitor'' executive compensation, nor has it developed written procedures for evaluating those packages. In other words, the beat goes on. Business as usual, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It is unconscionable. It has been proven time and time again that Fannie and Freddie Mac are synonymous with mismanagement, waste, outright corruption, and fraud. And their Federal regulator has the audacity to approve $12.8 million in executive bonuses to people who make $900,000 per year. This body should be ashamed if we let this happen, especially in these 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 millions of dollars, all while they ask the taxpayers for $6 million more today.

It has come to my attention that some of my colleagues are writing letters, calling for committee hearings on this issue. Letters are fine, hearings are fine, hearings are great. They are not the answer. The answer is for us to stop it from happening, and we can do that with an amendment on the pending appropriations bill. I will be offering an amendment, and I hope all of my colleagues would join in.

Let me just bring the attention of my colleagues to a book called ``Reckless Endangerment,'' written by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner. The title of it is ``How Outside Ambition, Greed and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon.'' So we are talking about pay and bonuses, and I read from the book:

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 a cent,

the investigators found.

Investigators uncovered documents from 1998 detailing the

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

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

Look, this story goes on in this book. It goes on and on how the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives intentionally ripped off the American people, describing profits in a way that was totally false, getting tens of millions in bonuses. This is a government-sponsored enterprise. Mr. Johnson, bailed out with $100 million or so of taxpayers' bonuses:

In 1999, Johnson joined Goldman's board, stepping into a

highly lucrative position that offered rich investment

opportunities overseen by the firm and opened doors for

Johnson around the world. In 2000, the Goldman board position

paid Johnson $50,000, not counting stock awards.

With brokerage firms such as Goldman Sachs, which flourished from the fees by underwriting securities issued by Fannie and Freddie, with fees totalling $100 million a year, guess who came on Fannie's board. Mr. Johnson.

Johnson was still on the board in 2010, when the Securities

and Exchange Commission sued the investment bank for

securities fraud related to its sale of a dubious mortgage

security. By that time, Johnson was earning almost $500,000

for his work on the Goldman board.

The accounting fraud at Fannie went undiscovered until 2005

when an investigation by OFHEO unearthed it. In a voluminous,

intensely detailed 2006 report, OFHEO noted that if Fannie

Mae had used appropriate accounting methods in 1998, the

company's performance would have generated no executive

bonuses at all.

A lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission

in 2006 said the company's 1998 results were ``intentionally

manipulated to trigger management bonuses.''

Although a highly kept secret at the time, Johnson's--

This is Mr. James Johnson--

Johnson's bonus for 1998 was $1.9 million, investigators

determined. It later emerged that the company had made

inaccurate disclosures when it said Johnson earned a total of

almost $7 million in 1998. In actuality, his total

compensation that year was like $21 million, OFHEO said,

referring to an internal Fannie Mae analysis it had turned

up.

So one of the great scams in American history is going on, and the people responsible for it have never been held responsible. They have never been held responsible. I refer my colleagues, take a look at this book, and I recommend taking blood pressure medicine before you read it.

Now, here we are, business as usual in Washington. The approval rating of Congress is now down to 9 percent. As I have said continuously, we are down to paid staffers and blood relatives.

Why aren't they happy with us? Why haven't we solved the housing crisis in America? Why is it that half the homes in Arizona are still underwater, worth less than their mortgages, while the financial institutions on Wall Street are doing just fine, with record profits, and Fannie and Freddie continue to act as if they did nothing wrong? And to add insult to injury, after a third quarter loss of $6 billion, they are going to get millions of dollars in bonuses.

I may be a bit of an idealist, but I will bet you there are some patriotic, talented Americans who would be willing to serve on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without being paid $900,000 a year and millions of dollars in bonuses. I really believe that. I really believe that. Yes, people are sitting in around the country; and, yes, I don't agree with a lot of their agenda. But when they read of things like this, their anger is justified. Already, $170 billion in bailouts. This morning, an additional $6 billion. Yet the American taxpayer is told they are making progress? And who has been held responsible at these organizations, at these government-sponsored enterprises that were responsible? To my knowledge, no one.

So it seems to me the least we can do is cancel these bonuses, make sure it doesn't happen, and maybe ask for some qualified, experienced, talented Americans to come in and take over this agency. And the first guy I think ought to go is the guy who approved these payouts, Mr. Edward J. DeMarco.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.