Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business, and I additionally ask unanimous consent that I be joined in a colloquy with Senator Graham from South Carolina and Senator Lieberman from Connecticut.

Madam President, yesterday, we learned from media reports the Obama administration has made a decision to sharply reduce the number of U.S. forces it is proposing for a post-2011 security agreement with Iraq to roughly 3,000 troops. That media report has not been contradicted yet by anyone in the administration, so one has to assume that is the direction which the administration is headed.

As is well known, 3,000 troops is dramatically lower than what our military commanders have repeatedly told us, on multiple trips to Iraq, would be needed to support Iraq's stability and secure the mutual interests our two nations have sacrificed so much to achieve. Our military leaders on the ground in Iraq have told us, in order to achieve our goal--which is a stable, self-governing Iraq, and as a partner in fighting terrorism and extremism--they need a post-2011 force presence that is significantly higher than 3,000 troops.

We continue to hear that the Iraqis are to blame because they haven't asked for a new agreement. The fact is, in early August, Iraq's major political blocks reached agreement to begin negotiations with the United States on a new security agreement. This week, Massoud Barzani, the President of the Kurdistan regional government and one of the most respected men in Iraq--and, in my view, one of the finest--called for a continued presence of U.S. troops, saying Iraqi security forces are still not prepared to secure protection for Iraq.

Perhaps significantly the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, Mr. Stuart Bowen, recently reported:

Iraq remains an extraordinarily dangerous place to work. It

is less safe, in my judgment, than 12 months ago. Buttressing

this conclusion is the fact that June was the deadliest month

for U.S. troops in more than 2 years.

And, by the way, we continue to hear these quotes from various administration officials about absent a request from the Iraqis, it is difficult to settle on any one thing. Victoria Nuland stated that if they come forward with a request, we would consider it. That is assuming it is only in Iraq's national interests to have additional troops here. It is in America's national security interests not to lose Iraq after the sacrifice of some 4,500 brave young Americans, and the consequences of failure are obvious.

Who is it that opposes the continued presence of the U.S. troops most vociferously, strenuously, and sometimes in a very subversive way? Iran and the Sadrists. Iran and the Sadrists want the United States out. It is not a matter of Iraqi national security interests, it is a matter of American national security interests.

What do 3,000 troops do? I don't know what 3,000 troops do, but I know they are required to have certain force protection numbers, which would be significant, and then how many troops would be left to carry out the mission of protecting the United States civilians, contractors, and personnel who remain there.

I guess you can sum this up, this decisionmaking process, best, and I quote from a New York Times article, ``Plan Would Keep Small Force in Iraq Past Deadline'':

A senior American military officer said the planning at

this point seemed to be driven more by the troop numbers than

the missions they could accomplish, exactly the opposite of

how military planners ideally like to operate. ``I think we

are doing this thing backwards,'' the officer said. ``We

should be talking about what missions we want to do, and then

decide how many troops we will need.''

I can assure my colleagues that is the view of the majority of members of the military, many of whom have had multiple tours in Iraq, that is their view of this process we are going through.

I would point out that my friends Senator Graham and Senator Lieberman, who are coming--and I have been to Iraq on many occasions since the initial invasion. We have had the opportunity to watch the brave young Americans serve and sacrifice. We have had the ability to see as the initial military success deteriorated into a situation of chaos, beginning with the looting and unrest in Baghdad to very unfortunate decisions that were made in the early period after the victory in Iraq. And we watched. We watched the situation where many of our military leaders, but also those who are now in the administration, say that if we employed a surge, it would fail. The President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the President's National Security Adviser, all of them said the surge would fail; it was doomed to failure.

The fact is the surge succeeded. The fact is we now have an Iraq that has an opportunity to be a free and independent country, but, maybe more importantly, one that would never pose a threat to the United States of America and, most importantly, a chance for the Iraqi people to enjoy the fruits of the sacrifice that thousands and thousands and thousands of Iraqis have made on their behalf and approximately 4,500 brave young Americans have.

The Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from Connecticut, and I recall meeting with military leaders in 2006, where we were told that everything was going fine. The Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from South Carolina, and I recall meeting with a British colonel in Basra who told us that unless we turned things around, we were doomed to failure. We remember the summer of 2007, when we were lonely voices, along with that of General Petraeus, General Odierno, and other great leaders who have been saying the surge could, and must, succeed.

I will leave it up to historians to decide whether our venture into Iraq was a good one or a bad one, whether the sacrifice of young Americans' lives was worth it, whether a stable and democratic Iraq, which can be the result of our involvement there, was the right or wrong thing to do. But what we should not do, and in deference to those who have served and sacrificed we must not do, is make a decision which would put all of that sacrifice and all that was gained by it in jeopardy because of our failure to carry out the fundamental requirement of contributing to Iraqi security in this very difficult transition time.

I would ask my friend from South Carolina, to start with, perhaps he remembers when we went to Baghdad, I believe it was 2007, and went downtown with General Petraeus and were mocked and made fun of in the media as I came back and said that things had improved in Iraq. Perhaps the Senator from South Carolina recalls when we had that almost triumphant visit in downtown Fallujah, a conflict that was won with great cost in American blood and treasure. Perhaps the Senator from South Carolina recalls going into downtown Baghdad and going to a bakery in an environment not of complete security but dramatically improved. All of it was purchased by the expenditure of America's most precious asset, young Americans' blood. And now we place all of that at great risk in the decisions, I say with respect, made by the same people who said the surge couldn't succeed.

I urge the administration and the President to reconsider what apparently is a decision and listen to our military leaders once, and employ a sufficient number of troops to provide the Iraqis with--as Barzai said, a sufficient number of troops to secure. As Barzai said, Iraq security forces are still not prepared to secure protections for Iraq.

I would ask my colleagues from South Carolina and Connecticut, aren't there plans for us to have a large amount of American civilians there, contractors, to protect them? Probably the most expensive form that we could do rather than American troops. Is it not a flawed strategy to not have enough American troops there to ensure that the lives of Americans who are serving there in various capacities are protected?

This was at a hearing?

Could I ask the Senator, are you leaving out the necessity for peacekeeping in the north between the Kurdish and the Arabs?

Can I ask my friend to yield?

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 7 minutes past 12:30.

Could I say to my colleague, no events in history are exactly similar. But I think we learned in Lebanon and again in Somalia that forces that are too small and do not have sufficient force protection--and I am not saying they are exact parallels, but certainly it puts whoever is there, whether they be military or civilian, in some kind of danger. As that progress has been made--and it has been significant progress in a country that has never known democracy--we have now Turkish attacks on the PKK up in the Kurdish area. We have continued tensions in the areas to which the Senator from South Carolina referred, which at one point, I believe, last June almost came to exchange of hostilities, between the Peshmerga and the others, and there is also increased Iranian interest in Basra. There continues to be the export of arms and IEDs from Iran into Iraq. They have no air force. They have no ability to protect their airspace.

Isn't it true their counterintelligence is dependent on our technical assistance, which means personnel?

So the argument seems to be that if we want this experiment to succeed, we should not put it in unnecessary jeopardy.

Could I mention one fundamental here? The question is: Is it in the United States national security interest to have these 10,000-plus American troops carrying out the missions we just described or is it not? If it is, then it is pure sophistry to say: Well, we would only consider this if the Iraqis requested it. If we are waiting for the Iraqis to request it, then it means it doesn't matter whether the United States is there.

I think the three of us and others--including General Odierno, General Petraeus, and the most respected military and civilian leadership--think it is in our national interest. The way this should have happened is the United States and the Iraqis sitting down together, once coming to an agreement, making a joint announcement that it is in both countries' national security interest. If it is not, then we should not send one single American there, not one.

Mr. President, I appreciate your indulgence and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I support the legislation before us today to raise the debt ceiling and at the same time curb government spending without raising taxes. The United States cannot default on our obligations, and this

bill prevents that from happening. This deal is not perfect. It is not what I would have written, and I have grave concerns about the cuts to our Nation's defense spending that may have to occur as a result of this bill's passage.

What this plan does represent is a fiscally sound path forward, and therefore I support its adoption. I applaud the courageous leadership of Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner. They have guided Republican members on both sides of the Capitol with tremendous skill and integrity and fought hard to ensure that our party's core principles were not negotiated away. I am proud of them, and I thank them. And I would be remiss if I did not also express my gratitude to Majority Leader Reid. He has a very difficult job in this body, and he deserves a tremendous amount of credit for helping get us to this point. He fought hard for his caucus and their priorities, and I congratulate him on successfully negotiating a fair compromise on their behalf.

While I will support this bill, I have a great deal of concern about the direction this compromise takes defense spending. I have said many times, defense spending since 9/11--which was preceded by nearly a decade of drastic reductions in military personnel, equipment, and readiness--is not the cause of the economic dilemma in which we find ourselves. Cutting defense so deeply that long-term, catastrophic damage to our national security interests would result will not solve our deficit spending and debt problem.

Since this year began, the President has already asked the Defense Department to cut more than $178 billion by finding efficiencies and taking top-line reductions in proposed defense spending over the next 5 years. But this compromise deal before us will go much further, with initial defense cuts of about $350 billion over 10 years as part of the initial agreement to raise the debt limit by just over $900 billion.

The bigger threat of cuts to national security spending, however, will come not during this first round but through the actions of the joint committee this bill establishes to find another $1.2 to $1.5 trillion in cuts as an offset to the next increase in the debt limit that will be required to get us from early 2012 through the balance of the year and into 2013. If the joint committee cannot agree on a package of cuts that can be passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and signed into law by the President, then a sequestration process would come into play that would automatically cut both defense and nondefense spending in order to pay for the next $1.2 trillion in debt ceiling increases. Such an across-the-board sequestration of defense funding levels could add another nearly $500 billion to the roughly $350 billion in cuts over the next 10 years.

At his confirmation hearing on July 26, GEN Martin Dempsey, who has been nominated to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that cuts above the $400 billion in defense spending that were already being studied would be ``extraordinarily difficult and very high risk.'' I agree. But what concerns me most about our current debate is not just the enormous size of the potential reductions but that the defense cuts being discussed have little to no strategic or military rationale to support them. They are essentially just numbers on a page. Our national defense planning and spending must be driven by considered strategy, not arbitrary arithmetic.

These defense cuts, initially about $350 billion over 10 years--but especially those that could result from sequestration that could amount to another $500 billion--reflect minimal, if any, understanding of how they will be applied or what impact they will have on our defense capabilities or our national security. While Secretary Panetta has made it clear that a comprehensive review will precede any decisions he makes on further defense cuts, the Congress currently has no specific indication of how the current debt compromise proposals would impact the size of our military forces, what changes they would require to our compensation system, what equipment and weapons would have to be cancelled as a result, or what additional risk to the readiness and modernization of our forces and their equipment we would have to accept. If Congress is to make informed decisions about our national defense spending, we need information like this, and it will have a crucial impact on how the joint committee created under this compromise goes about its work. And based on that sort of information, we must do everything we can to avoid an exercise in blind sequestration of defense funds that could come into play if the joint committee cannot find a way to find further cuts of $1.2 trillion or more that can be enacted into law.

For many months, we have been engaged in a political tug-of-war over whether we should raise the debt limit and allow the President greater borrowing authority. I joined my colleagues on this side of the aisle in our insistence that any increase in our debt ceiling be accompanied by meaningful, real cuts in spending, not just typical Washington-style smoke and mirrors. I believe we achieved our goal with this compromise. The deal before us provides at least one dollar of actual spending cuts, not gimmicks, for each dollar in debt limit increases. It doesn't raise a single dollar in taxes. By including upfront cuts, a joint committee, a balanced budget amendment, BBA, vote, the debt disapproval process and sequesters, it continues the pressure on the President and Congress to continue cutting spending through the next election and beyond.

Some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have described the debate on this issue as a ``manufactured crisis.'' They cite the fact that, in the past, we routinely raised the debt ceiling with little or no debate, having done so at least 10 times in the last ten years. Well, I say to my friends, you are leaving out one very critical detail in your analysis--a detail that makes our current situation anything but ``routine''--and that is this: Never before in the history of this great nation has our debt been $14.6 trillion. Never before in our history have we faced the possibility of having our creditworthiness downgraded due to our inability to control our spiraling debt, which could very well decimate the good faith and credit of the United States, which would have a severe impact on our standing in the world.

This measure represents the beginning, not the end, of what I believe will be a sustained national focus on getting our fiscal house in order. We still have a very long way to go and a great deal of hard work to do. Americans are still hurting. Unemployment remains at unacceptable levels and is estimated to continue to grow. We need to cut spending, spur economic growth, and get people back to work. These goals cannot be achieved by raising taxes on individuals and small businesses, and they cannot be achieved by expanding the size of government and massively increasing federal spending. It is time we learned from the lessons of the past, and the past has taught us that we cannot spend and tax our way to prosperity. America has been driven down that road, and we nearly plunged off of a cliff into economic disaster. I believe that this measure will begin to put us on the right track.

I urge my colleagues to seize this opportunity to put America back on a path to fiscal solvency and vote in favor of this compromise.

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

The Senate Armed Services Committee just met and approved the nominations of the Chairman and Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Army, and other important nominations. I congratulate all of these nominees and appreciate their service to the Nation. I know that shortly the Senate will approve these positions of great responsibility.

I want to take one moment to mention one of the new Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army, GEN Ray Odierno, one of the finest military officers I have had the opportunity to know. He was responsible, along with David Petraeus, for implementing the surge in Iraq. All of us who have had the opportunity of knowing General Odierno are proud of his new position and know he will carry out his responsibilities with the same outstanding leadership and efficiency he has displayed in the past.

I congratulate all of the nominees. These are going to be very challenging times. General Dempsey will now be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I believe he is highly qualified, as are the nominees for the Vice Chairman as well as the Chief of Naval Operations. I congratulate them all. A special congratulations and word of praise for General Odierno, who is a great and outstanding leader.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Well, I will tell you what. I will be glad to engage in a short colloquy with the Senator from Illinois, if he would like.

Does the Senator from Illinois believe we are close to an agreement?

Does the Senator from Illinois agree that, most likely, that agreement will not have an increase in taxes associated with it, at least in the short term?

You hope so?

Well, everything I have heard is that the agreement does not

have tax increases in it. Has the Senator heard differently, being in the leadership?

So I assume that would also mean the Senator from Illinois would advocate another stimulus package?

So one would have to assume that the Senator from Illinois believes the last stimulus package was successful, which was, counting interest, over $1 trillion. The Senator from Illinois and others who advocated the stimulus package and the administration said: If we pass this, unemployment will be a maximum of 8 percent. This will stimulate our economy and create jobs.

Do you know what the Senator from Illinois and others are saying now? It was not enough, that it was not enough, that we didn't spend enough, that we didn't make the deficit larger. Because certainly nothing in the stimulus package was paid for. So I hope the Senator from Illinois understands--the American people understand--that just spending more money has failed and failed miserably.

When we look at the latest news, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post and the New York Times, that our economy is staggering back into a situation of stagnation, and the response--I will be glad to let the Senator respond. The answer on the other side is: Well, let's have some more spending and let's raise taxes. Let's take some more money out of the taxpayers' pockets in the form of spending more money--their money. It is not the administration's money. It is not the money of the Senator from Illinois. It is the people's money. Take some more money of theirs--and this is the Nobel Prize--well, I will not--anyway. Take more money and taxes and more out of the taxpayers' pockets, and that will be the answer to our problems.

I will be glad to hear the response of the Senator from Illinois.

May I say that rather than having the Senator use all our time, I thought I would engage in a colloquy.

Go ahead, please.

If I could interrupt on that particular point, Mr. Zandi was one of many advisers to my campaign. The key adviser was Douglas Holtz-Akin, who is, as you know, former head of the CBO--the Senator knows him well--who had no brief whatsoever for that proposal.

Please go ahead.

If I could take a little trip down memory lane with my friend from Illinois, whom I had the great privilege many years ago--I don't know if I should mention the 1982 election. He and I came to the House of Representatives together, and he might recall that one of his own, then a Democratic Congressman from Texas, got together with President Reagan and guess what we did. We cut taxes. Guess what. We had one of the strongest recoveries in recent history of this country because we didn't start spending and add spending without paying for them.

I would say to the Senator from Illinois, he is correct; the spending that went on in the previous administration was not acceptable and led to the deficit. But I would also say, speaking for myself, I voted against the Medicare Part D because it was not paid for. I voted against the earmark and porkbarrel spendings which were abundant as every appropriations bill came to the floor and dramatically increased spending in the worst way, wasteful and corrupt way, I will say. I am proud that at least some of us said: If we don't stop this spending and get it under control, then we are going to face a serious problem.

But I would also mention, and the Senator has seen the chart, it has gotten a lot worse--a lot worse--since the last election. You can't keep up B-I-O-B. You can't keep up Blame It On Bush.

Go ahead.

If I could say we believed and Reagan believed that cutting tax cuts would restore our economy, which was in the tank, thanks to the practice of the previous administration before him. Reagan presided over probably one of the greatest job-creation periods in the history of this country. Those are numbers that I would be glad to insert into the Record.

Compare that with what has happened since this administration took office, with the promise that if we passed ObamaCare, if we passed TARP, if we passed all these others, the economy would then be restored and grow.

Again, it is hard for my dear friend from Illinois to refute the fact that it was categorically stated that if we passed the stimulus package, unemployment would be at a maximum of 8 percent.

Unemployment today is 9.2 percent, and if we look at any indicator, whether it be housing starts, whether it be the deficit, whether it be unemployed, whatever it is, it has gotten worse since the stimulus package was passed rather than better.

I would be glad to just hear the Senator's comment.

As the Senator may know, I came to the floor a couple days ago and made the comment that the Senator from Illinois and I are in agreement.

Point No. 1, we can prioritize--and every economist that I know literally would agree. We can prioritize for a while where we want what remaining money that is left. But the message we send to the world--not just our markets but to the world--that the United States of America is going to default on its debts is a totally unacceptable scenario and beneath a great nation. We are in agreement, No. 1.

No. 2 is that to insist that any agreement is based on the

passage through the Senate of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as I said before, is not fair to the American people because the terrible obstructionists on the Senator's side of the aisle, the terrible people, their flawed philosophical views about the future of America is not going to allow us to get 20 additional votes from the Senator's side, assuming you get all 47, since it required 67 votes to pass a balanced budget amendment because of the Constitution.

I think it was not only a wrong assessment; I think it is not fair to the American people to say we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution through the Senate at this time. Maybe after the Senator is defeated in the next election and we get rid of a lot of-- maybe that will happen. But certainly let's not tell the American people that is a possibility because I think it raises their expectations in a way that is not fair to them and, frankly, detracts from what I think is being done as we speak between the leaders, the President, Democratic leaders and Republican leaders, which is in a very short timeframe.

Go ahead.

I would love to come out. As I saw, I did so well in the Presidential campaign in the land of Lincoln, I am not surprised I had such a dramatic impact on the election of the Senator from Illinois as well.

Could I just say, I think this kind of discussion is important, No. 1.

No. 2 is, we should have this national debate on other forums besides just the Sunday show, and perhaps the floor of the Senate is the best place to do that. I wish to continue to engage with the Senator from Illinois, but I hope this agreement will assure the American people that we will meet our obligations, that we will meet our obligations not only physically but fiscally but also meet our obligations to them to govern--to govern--because they did send to us here to govern. I think the Senator from Illinois would agree with me.

The last approval rating of Congress I saw, both sides of the aisle, was about 16 percent; and I have yet to encounter anyone in that 16- percent category in my travels back to my State.

By the way, I would like to note the presence of the Budget Committee chairman, Senator Conrad, who I think has made enormous good-faith efforts to reach an agreement on some of these issues, and I thank him for his work. I wish to assure him his reward will be in heaven, not here on Earth.

Could I remind the Senator from Illinois that, in retrospect, the one thing President Reagan said he regretted--and he regretted it--was the agreement that was made with the Democratic leadership that we would cut spending by $3 and increase taxes by $1 for every cut in spending. That was the ironclad agreement. Guess what happened. We increased taxes. The fact is, we raised taxes and did not cut spending, and that was in direct violation of the commitment he got from the Democratic leadership.

I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for additional time, if necessary.

Madam President, as the Senator from Illinois just pointed out, today we are 6 days away from a possible default which could plunge this country into a serious crisis. In fact, there are some who view maybe it is not exactly 6 days; it could be a few days more. There are those who argue that somehow--in a bizarre fashion-- that somehow we could prioritize our payments to the most urgent requirements, such as our veterans, such at Social Security and others.

I wonder, what if the Greek Government came up with that same proposal as they went into bankruptcy, that they would prioritize spending that is remaining?

The point is, today we are 6 days away. The point is, markets are jittery. Investors are concerned. Most importantly, our constituents are frustrated. They are confused and they are

angry. Today, on the front page of USA Today, there is a headline that says:

The Debt: What Americans Think About The Political Debate.

It goes on to say:

Just get it done, work it out.

Another person:

``I'm sick of it,'' says Davis, 73, a retired economist. .

. . ``They're playing games. Here we are, trying to pull

ourselves out of recession, and they can't come to an

agreement.''

If anyone thinks that the reputation and the approval rating of Congress and the Presidency has improved during this situation we find ourselves in, obviously they are out of touch with their constituents and the American people. Not only are the American people concerned, not only are the American people upset, but I will quote from and ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from this morning's Washington Post.

That article says:

Frustrated executives say political impasse slows hiring

and investing.

Business leaders are growing exasperated with Washington.

And they say the dysfunction in the political system is

holding them back from hiring and investing.

So where we are is, average American citizens are worried, Social Security recipients who are entitled are calling our offices, and the markets are already jittery. Most economists believe, if we allow this deadline to pass, that we will see a cratering of the financial markets, which, obviously, has a significant impact on savings, on people's holdings in the stock market, 401(k)s, et cetera. Meanwhile, here we are with a situation, and over on the other side of the Capitol, our Republican friends are trying to come up with a proposal that will receive the support of their majority. Over here, we have individuals who believe somehow there is still a chance, at least in this Congress, to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

I will take a backseat to none in my support of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I have voted for it 13 times. I will vote for it tomorrow. What is amazing about this is, some Members are believing we can pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in this body with its present representation, and that is foolish. That is worse than foolish. That is deceiving many of our constituents by telling them that just because the majority leader tabled the balanced budget amendment legislation that, through amending and debate, we could somehow convince the majority on the other side of the aisle to go along with a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is not fair. That is not fair to the American people to hold out and say we will not agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is unfair. It is bizarro. Maybe some people who have only been in this body for 6 or 7 months or so believe that. Others know better. Others know better.

I am confident, one, someday we will pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Two, I am confident the overwhelming majority of the American people support it. Three, I am convinced that is the only way that at the end of the day, we will get spending under control because I have seen in the past Congress enacting very strong restrictions on spending, such as the Gramm-Rudman legislation, which required spending cuts with increases in spending and all of them failed because Congresses cannot bind future Congresses.

That is why I remain committed to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. To somehow think or tell our citizens that if we have enough debate on amendments in the Senate, in the short term, in the next 6 days, we will pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is unfair to our constituents. It is unfair to our constituents, frankly, to come up with a plan--the so-called Reid plan--that is full of smoke and mirrors, and, frankly, does not entail any increase--real spending cuts. It is unfair of the President of the United States to lead from behind. It is unfair of the President of the United States not to come forward with a specific plan that perhaps could be considered by both bodies but only to go out and give lectures and act in as partisan a fashion as I have seen in his addresses to the American people. It is no wonder the approval ratings of the American people of the President and of Congress are literally at alltime lows.

I wish to talk for just a minute about an editorial in The Wall Street Journal this morning. The Wall Street Journal is not known to be--especially on its editorial page--a liberal periodical. It is entitled ``The GOP's Reality Test.'' It talks about:

The debt-limit debate is heading toward a culmination, with

President Obama reduced to pleading for the public to support

a tax increase and Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority

Leader Harry Reid releasing competing plans that are next-to-

last realistic options. The question is whether House

Republicans are going to help Mr. Boehner achieve significant

progress, or, in the name of the unachievable, hand Mr. Obama

a victory.

Mr. Obama recognizes these stakes, threatening yesterday to

veto the Boehner plan in a tactical move to block any

Democratic support.

It goes on and talks about the two-phase Boehner plan.

Congress would authorize $1 trillion in new debt in return

for $1.2 trillion.

It has since been scored by CBO, and now I believe that on the House side--they are struggling but I hope will succeed in coming up with a proposal that will authorize the cuts we have advertised.

But I go on to read:

Unless the plan passed, Mr. Obama couldn't request the

additional $1.6 trillion debt ceiling increase that he would

soon need. The political incentive is for a reasonable

package, and many Senate Democrats also don't want to vote

for tax increases before 2012.

It talks about the critics, about people putting out statements, telling Republicans, telling the Speaker to come up with a better solution.

The usually sensible Club for Growth and Heritage Action,

the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, are scoring a

vote for the Boehner plan as negative on similar grounds.

But what none of these critics have is an alternative

strategy for achieving anything nearly as fiscally or

politically beneficial as Mr. Boehner's plan. The idea seems

to be if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a

default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and

the public will turn en masse against Barack Obama. The

Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would

somehow escape all the blame. Then Democrats would have no

choice but to pass a balanced budget amendment and reform

entitlements, and the tea party Hobbits could return to

Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.

This is the kind of crack political thinking that turned

Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell into GOP Senate

nominees. The reality is that the debt limit will be raised

one way or another, and the only issue now is with how much

fiscal reform and what political fallout.

If the Boehner plan fails in the House, the advantage

shifts to Mr. Reid's Senate plan, which would raise the debt

ceiling by $2.4 trillion in one swoop through 2012. That

would come without a tax increase but also $2.7 trillion in

mostly fake spending cuts like less government ``waste,

fraud, and abuse.''

How many times have we heard we are going to cut waste, fraud, and abuse?

And a $1 trillion savings from troop drawdowns in Iraq and

Afghanistan that are already built into the baseline. As

fiscal reform, this is worse than Mr. Boehner's plan.

The Speaker has made mistakes in his debt negotiations, not

least in trusting that Mr. Obama wants serious fiscal

reforms. But thanks to the President's overreaching on taxes,

Mr. Boehner now has the GOP positioned in sight of a

political and policy victory. If this plan or something close

to it becomes law, Democrats will have conceded more spending

cuts than they thought possible, and without getting the GOP

to raise taxes and without being able to blame Republicans

for a debt-limit crackup or economic damage.

If conservatives defeat the Boehner plan, they'll not only

undermine our House majority. They'll go far to re-electing

Mr. Obama and making the entitlement state that much harder

to reform.

Let me say, again, I believe the plan crafted by Senator McConnell that would call for significant cuts in spending, which would not have raises in taxes, would, in the short term, be a most reasonable solution. I hope that on both sides of the aisle we could work together and negotiate a way through that. I also think the much derided by some idea of a committee composed of Members of Congress--of Members of Congress only--from both sides of the aisle, from both sides of the Capitol, to sit down and work out a long-term solution to our fiscal calamities we are facing and those results and those recommendations by that committee be subject to an up-or-down vote only is the only way we can go.

How many times have we had a budget resolution that tasks the various committees to come up with savings and always those savings are phony or they are dismantled on the floor of the Senate? The only way we are going to have the courage to make these cuts is with a committee composed of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the Capitol who come up with tough measures that need to be taken. I believe the American people will support it. If it is not an up-or-down vote, we know what happens around here. Let's be honest. Let's have some straight talk. The special interests prevail, and they would dismantle the tough provisions this committee would come up with. I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, this is a balance, Republican and Democrat. We only control one-third of the government, and that is the House of Representatives. It seems to me a balanced, equal representation is to our advantage.

I just wish to say a word, again, about the Reid plan. First of all, I congratulate the majority leader for coming up with a plan because certainly the President has not. Spectrum auctions is part of it. That is going to provide auction of billions of dollars. I have been in this body for a considerable period of time. I can't tell you the number of times we have called for auction of spectrum. It is an annual basis. It is a copout that prevents us from making tough decisions. Most egregiously, the majority leader's plan provides $1 billion to pay television broadcasters who return unused television broadcast spectrum. The television broadcasters got the spectrum for free, and now we are supposed to ask the taxpayers to give them $1 billion to give back the spectrum they own?

Then, very interestingly, savings in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. There

are $30 billion in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reforms. There is nowhere in this proposal that mentions that, but I would point out we have already spent $150 billion on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that we have never seen the end of. Then, of course, the large claim that there is $1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, of course, that is phony. Everybody knows we are winding down the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So here we are 6 days away, and we still have members of Congress who are saying we have to pass the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We have Members on the other side who are saying we have to raise taxes. We have a President of the United States who so far has refused to come forward with a detailed plan of his own. That is called leading from behind. It is time we listened to the markets. It is time we listened to our constituents. Most of all, it is time we listened to the American people and sit down and seriously negotiate something before we face a situation where we are depriving the American people of the fundamental right of having a government that doesn't deprive them of the essential services, goods, and entitlements which they have earned.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I regret that due to my attendance at a dear friend's funeral this morning, I was not in the Senate to cast my vote for the cut, cap and balance legislation. I fully support cut, cap and balance and I am proud that Republicans put forward a concrete proposal to cut spending, balance the budget, reign in the spiraling debt that imperils our children's future and ensures that our Nation continues to meet its obligations.

The Democratic leadership has failed to put forward any meaningful proposal to break this impasse, but instead continues to set up procedural road blocks to keep Republican plans from passing and force votes on nonbinding legislation that will do nothing to solve our problems. The Democrats, led by President Obama, continue to insist that our fiscal difficulties can be fixed by raising taxes on individuals and small businesses--the exact policies that will deepen our economic woes, not fix them.

Both parties must now find a reasonable, responsible path forward to address head-on our debt crisis, end the mortgaging of our children's future and make certain that our Nation meets its debt obligations, as we Americans always have. If Speaker Tip O'Neill and President Ronald Regan could find agreement on such matters, we can too. We must put politics aside and do what is right for our Nation.

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

Madam President, I rise in support of the Coburn amendment and ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma.

Madam President, I think it is important for us to understand what this amendment is about.

It does not affect the decisions regarding disability as a result of Agent Orange that have already been decided under the guidelines that were extended by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This is a prospective amendment. So any allegation that this somehow affects previous awarding of disability payments is not correct. It is a prospective amendment for cases that will be decided in the future.

The issue of disability is always one that is very difficult because we start on the basis that concerns men and women who have served honorably in the military. Obviously, the predilection is, appropriately, to grant disabilities where those claims are made. But we now have a situation where somewhere around $40 billion, $41 billion, simply over the issue of heart disease, can be awarded without what appears to be a direct connection to Agent Orange.

There were many of our men and women who were serving in the conflict in Vietnam who were exposed to Agent Orange, but there were many more who were not. I don't think one can make a case that someone who was stationed on a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin and was many miles from any Agent Orange, that one could make a plausible case that Agent Orange was the cause of this disability.

What this amendment tries to do is give a realistic set of parameters for the awarding of disability payment for those who actually were exposed, and not only exposed but also that there is a direct connection between the exposure to herbicides and the outcome.

There are many needs amongst our veterans. They are there every single day. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure there is a legitimate need for compensation for those who were exposed to Agent Orange and a direct connection between that exposure and certain disabilities, particularly heart disease, Parkinson's disease, Hodgkin's, et cetera. What we are trying to do is make sure those who were actually exposed, and there is a direct connection, are rewarded, and adequately so, but at the same time not have a situation where it is an open-ended expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.

The Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission endorsed the need for establishing a new framework for presumptions with more transparent processes but failed to take the full step of embracing causality in decisionmaking. This amendment will achieve that goal identified by the Institute of Medicine to ensure that scientifically based causality is at the heart of the disability determination process.

I would match the commitment of the Senator from Oklahoma and my own for veterans with the commitment of anyone in this body, but there also has to be some rationality associated with it. I was a great admirer of the Honorable Tony Principi, who was the former Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Again, I want to quote from his statement:

If the American people lose faith in the integrity of our

disability benefit system, veterans and their families will

be the ones who suffer. The surest way for that to happen is

for the public to be convinced that presumptive service

connection decisions are based on anything other than sound

scientific advice.

These presumptions, as they presently exist, are not based on sound scientific advice. With some I am sure this amendment is not popular, but I thank my colleague from Oklahoma for bringing it to the attention of this body.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I ask him, I have heard anecdotally the eligibility for disability under the guidelines as issued by the Secretary of the Army--and, by the way, we are talking about $40-some billion additional of taxpayers' money. I think that should be the subject of legislative action rather than a decision made by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Is it not true that, anecdotally, we have heard that people who were in the Korean war and not the Vietnam war have somehow become eligible? And people who were on ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, not anywhere near Agent Orange, have also been declared eligible?

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank the Senator from Oregon. This is an issue that needs to be resolved, and it has been a pleasure working with him on not only the behalf of the people of Oregon but also on behalf of the Department of Defense.

Amendment No. 564

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Oklahoma in supporting the amendment which Senator Coburn had intended to propose. The amendment would have amended Public Law 102-4, the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which I cosponsored, to provide clarity on the factual basis required for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make future determinations on the presumption of connection of military service in Vietnam with diseases associated with exposure to the herbicide commonly known as Agent Orange.

Agent Orange was unanticipated and certainly not something that at the time, given the scientific knowledge and information we had, was thought would be detrimental to the health of the men and women who were serving in the Vietnam war. But the fact is, Agent Orange did have a very serious health effect on the men and women who were serving and those who came in contact with it. For years, we delayed compensating our veterans, those who were exposed to Agent Orange.

In 1991, the act was a long overdue answer to questions on the health effects of exposure to Agent Orange, and it directed much deserved compensation to our veterans for certain diseases, including non- Hodgkin's lymphoma and certain cancers.

What has happened, and the reason why I appreciate the Senator from

Oklahoma raising this issue, is it has obviously now reached a point where the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has now expanded the eligibility to the point where it is beyond any scientific evidence that compensation would be required.

In 2006, it was found that the evidence linking ischemic heart disease to exposure to herbicides was inadequate or insufficient. Heart disease, as we all know, is the leading cause of death in America today and has been so for decades.

In 2008, they updated their findings based on two epidemiological studies which provided ``statistical'' evidence of a relationship. Still, they categorized the link between ischemic heart disease and exposure to Agent Orange as ``limited or suggestive evidence of an association.'' That already low standard was further qualified with the following statement:

Epidemiologic evidence suggests an association--

Suggests an association--

between exposure to herbicides and the outcome, but a firm

conclusion is limited because chance, bias and confounding

could not be ruled out with confidence.

Despite this doubt, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs decided to grant a new presumption for ischemic heart disease, which according to the Department of Veterans Affairs will cost nearly $31.9 billion over the next 10 years. Similarly, with Parkinson's disease, which was also found to be in the category of ``limited or suggestive evidence,'' a decision was made to grant compensation and benefits based on exposure to Agent Orange, which according to the VA will cost $3.5 billion over the next 10 years.

This process is a risky, hit or miss, and costly way to administer the veterans disability program and resources, which are in scarce supply and which our veterans need and deserve in return for their sacrifice to our Nation.

In its report to the congressionally mandated Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission in 2007, the Institute of Medicine itself found that the ``association'' standard contained in the Agent Orange Act was inadequate and potentially misleading. That report recommended the goal of the presumptive disability decisionmaking process be to ensure compensation for veterans whose diseases are caused by military service and a new primary standard that sufficient evidence to support a determination of presumption would exist when evidence is sufficient to conclude that a causal relationship exists.

The Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission endorsed the need for establishing a new framework for presumptions with more transparent processes, but it failed to take the full step of embracing causality in decisionmaking.

The amendment my colleague from Oklahoma so bravely intended to offer would have achieved the goal identified by the Institute of Medicine to ensure that scientifically based causality is at the heart of the disability determination process.

My vote in favor of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 was a vote to discern facts from rhetoric and even politics and to put the welfare of our veterans above all other considerations, including costs. My support of the Coburn amendment would be no different. It is appropriate to adopt a clearer, stronger standard for the presumption of service-connected disabilities to ensure greater consistency in this process and, in doing so, to help ensure that our Nation's resources are available to provide appropriate compensation and benefits for veterans of wars to come.

Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Honorable Tony Principi, before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, on September 23, 2010, on this very subject--the subject of presumptive disability decisionmaking--said:

Make no mistake: these decisions do not merely affect those

who may or may not receive presumptive service connections

and their families. The American people watch these decisions

closely, both to ensure that those who have defended our

Nation while in uniform are treated fairly, and to ensure

that those who have been given the responsibility to

administer the program are good stewards of the resources

with which they have been entrusted. If the American people

lose faith in the integrity of our disability benefits

system, veterans and their families will be the ones who

suffer. The surest way for that to happen is for the public

to be convinced that presumptive service connection decisions

are based on anything other than sound scientific advice.

There is no sound scientific advice that indicates that many of these decisions are valid and directly connected to exposure to Agent Orange. I urge the chairman of the committee to look into this issue. We are talking about $31.9 billion and another $3.5 billion which may not be necessary to be spent.

I believe and understand the emotion associated with the issue of Agent Orange because for so many years our Nation neglected--that was not benign neglect, it was neglect--the plight of veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and the terrible physical problems that ensued as a result of that exposure. But now it is pretty clear that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has gone way over in the opposite direction in giving presumptive service connection when there is no valid scientific evidence to convince me that kind of illegibility is there.

So I thank my colleague from Oklahoma.

I urge the Senator, the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, to look at this issue, look at whether this $31.9 billion, plus $3.5 billion--over $35 billion--over the next 10 years is wisely spent. That does not mean we do not provide disability payments to those who actually have been exposed and need it. But there is a lack of scientific evidence that many of the benefits that are being extended are absolutely warranted.

So I know the Senator from Oklahoma will not be proposing this amendment, and I understand that. But I wish to assure the committee chairman that when we are talking about this kind of money, we need to investigate it very seriously and reach decisions which are in the best interests of our veterans. There are veterans out there who need compensation, and every day, unfortunately, we are having young men and women return from the battlefield who have disabilities as a result of serving our Nation in combat. So I hope the chairman of the committee will look at this issue very seriously.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I want to make it clear that in this amendment there is no desire to deprive someone who was actually exposed to this herbicide called Agent Orange and suffered physical consequences as a result; that this amendment basically draws a difference among three words: One is ``causation,'' which is generally the criteria used in any of these cases, the causation, and that would replace the current ``positive association.''

As the Senator just described, positive association could be most any encounter that anybody would have had who served. I always thought it was in Vietnam, but now he tells me it is even adding someone who served in Korea.

Isn't it true that we are not trying to deprive anyone who was legitimately exposed to Agent Orange and shows the causation, and that they are entitled to benefits from the taxpayers of America? What we are talking about, isn't it true, is that ``positive association'' is such an amorphous definition that it leads to an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars, while there are veterans out there who are in need of these taxpayer dollars for their legitimate reasons?

Will the Senator from Texas yield for a question?

The Senator from Texas, I am just wondering if a view that she might have might be that we have been terribly overworked this week. I understand we cancelled our Fourth of July recess in order to get back here and get to work and do the people's business.

Is it correct that was the second vote that we have taken? One was an instruction of the Sergeant at Arms, and this one, another highly controversial issue that was taken up.

I guess my question to the Senator from Texas is, Has this week been a worthwhile expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars?

I see the distinguished majority leader waiting, so I will make my comments brief. I know that his agenda is very busy.

I would just say to my friend from Texas that I understand a lot of the inner mechanisms and hidden workings are going on behind the scenes. But when I go back and tell my constituents that we cancelled a week of recess and we had two votes--one to instruct the Sergeant at Arms and the other on a sense-of-the Senate resolution--I would have liked to have taken up other business that was rejected by Members on this side because they wanted to focus on the deficit. But if we are focusing on that, maybe we should have taken up some issues that directly affect the deficit, such as ethanol subsidies, such as some of the other tax breaks and loopholes and other issues that surround the whole bankruptcy of this country.

I see the majority leader is waiting, so I will yield to my friend from Texas.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes to address this body as in morning business.

Madam President, it is well known to all Americans who have observed, and certainly the media and certainly Members of this body, the Congress, that the debt limit talks are bogged down. There has been little if any progress, certainly not any perceptible to the American people. We are in a gridlock, a gridlock that is not favored by many Americans. In fact, I continue to hear from my constituents the call: Why can't you all sit down and work this out? Why can't we not be faced with a shutdown of the government and the loss of the important services that the Federal Government gives to the American people--most of which they have earned and all of which they deserve?

Here we are with the President of the United States demanding that there be tax increases and the Republicans, certainly many of them, are insisting on a balanced budget amendment which cannot pass the Congress of the United States.

On the one hand, President Obama and my friends on the other side of the aisle insist on tax increases and argue somewhat inflammatory and populist issues such as corporate jets, carried interest for private equity, oil and gas. Those are hard to defend.

At the same time it is very clear that the American people spoke and administered what the President of the United States called a ``shellacking'' last November. They want us to stop mortgaging our children's and our grandchildren's future and get the spending under control. I have yet to meet a constituent who wants their taxes increased.

We are in a gridlock. There will be a meeting tomorrow on the debt crisis again, this time between the President and leaders of Congress. We all hope it will succeed, but it is my view the way to break this gridlock is to agree to certain tax increases and closing loopholes, but only in return for an overall reduction of the corporate tax rate. That way, Republicans can say we have not raised taxes overall, and the administration and the Democrats can say they eliminated loopholes and indeed made the taxation of Americans more fair.

It is time we got serious. The debt, as we all know, is $50,000 for every man, woman, and child living in America today. That is why we have seen the rise of the Tea Party and the fiscal conservatives. I hope these negotiations can be made visible to the American public by C-SPAN so they can see what is being discussed.

As I said, the debt stands at $14.5 trillion. We cannot continue to sit idly by while saddling future generations of Americans with the burden. So if we are serious about our commitment to reduce our debt and eliminate the deficit, then Congress needs to start making some serious decisions, and we need to start now.

I would like to remind my colleagues, particularly in light of the impassioned speech I just listened to from my friend from Massachusetts, here is what President Obama's thoughts on the debt limit were in 2006 when he was a Member of this body. I quote him from a speech he made on the floor of this Senate:

The fact we are here today to debate raising America's debt

limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the

U.S. Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that

we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign

countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal

policies. . . . Increasing America's debt weakens us

domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ``the

buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden

of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and

grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of

leadership. Americans deserve better.

Then-Senator Barack Obama on the floor of this Senate.

I guess it shows on some issues with then-Senator Barack Obama it is not where one stands, it is where one sits. I could not agree more with what then-Senator Obama said in 2006. Americans do deserve better. We are in this mess today because of a serious lack of leadership. It is not the fault of just one of the political parties; it is the fault of both parties. Year after year of uncontrolled spending by both Republicans and Democrats has brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. The point at which we will begin to default on our obligations is now just weeks away, and it is shameful. It should be inconceivable that the greatest Nation in the history of the world should face such crippling debt while its leaders engage in such partisan bickering instead of solving this problem.

I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the lead editorial in today's Wall Street Journal, which I believe holds the answer to this stalemate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that today's editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled ``A Debt-Limit Breakout'' be printed in the Record.

I quote from it:

The debt-limit talks in Washington are bogged down in the

hedgerows, with some Republicans insisting on a balanced

budget amendment that can't pass Congress and President Obama

insisting on tax increases that Republicans oppose. What this

debate needs is a breakout strategy--to wit, Republicans

should answer Mr. Obama's tax call by accepting his business

tax increases in return for a lower corporate tax rate.

The Wall Street Journal goes on to say:

We've long favored such a reform, and last year so did the

Simpson-Bowles deficit commission and the White House

economic advisory council headed by Paul Volcker. But the

cause has now acquired no less a convert than Bill Clinton.

Speaking Saturday at something called the Aspen Ideas

Festival, the former President admitted that he had once

raised tax rates on corporations.

``It made sense when I did it. It doesn't make sense

anymore. We've got an uncompetitive rate,'' he said. ``We tax

at 35% of income, although we only take about 23%. So we

should cut the rate to 25%, or whatever's competitive, and

eliminate a lot of the deductions so that we still get a fair

amount, and there's not so much variance in what the

corporations pay.''

The editorial goes on to say:

Anyone not in thrall of class-war symbolism understands

that the U.S. corporate tax code provides the worst of both

worlds: It makes U.S. companies less competitive even as it

raises much less revenue than advertised. Mr. Obama and

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have acknowledged this in the

past, the President as recently as this year's State of the

Union address.

As for the debt-limit politics, this is also a winner.

Democrats and Republicans say they've agreed privately on

sizable spending cuts over a 10-year budget window. No doubt

some of those cuts are less real than others, and future

Congresses could rewrite any enforcement provisions passed

this year. But Republicans still have an incentive to set

spending on a downward path, and Mr. Obama has an incentive

to show he is no longer a hostage of Nancy Pelosi as he runs

for re-election.

The political sticking point is Mr. Obama's desire for some

Republican buy-in on raising revenues. His political left is

still sore that he agreed to extend the Bush tax rates

through 2012. Thus he's pounding Republicans to agree to

eliminate certain business tax deductions that political

advisers David Axelrod and David Plouffe have told him will

be hard for Republicans to defend. Corporate jets. Carried

interest for private equity. Oil and gas. Even LIFO

accounting, which few understand but can be made to sound

nefarious.

Whatever their individual merits, each of those would be a

tax increase on business, and Republicans campaigned last

year on not raising taxes. But the politics is different if

they can offset these revenue raisers with lower tax rates.

That would let Republicans honestly claim they didn't support

a net tax increase, even as Mr. Obama could say he raised

revenue.

Our own guess is that such a reform would raise far more

money than the official scorers would predict, since it would

lead to a more efficient allocation of capital and less tax

evasion. This would also promote economic growth, breaking

out of the austerity mentality driven by debt reduction. If

Mr. Obama really is worried that lower federal spending will

hurt the economy, then this tax reform is also his best

growth policy.

The Journal argues that we can offset the costs to businesses of closing loopholes and eliminating subsidies with a cut in the corporate tax rate. I completely agree. We should be openminded when considering what should be eliminated. For instance, the distorting effect of subsidies is clearly evident in the energy sector. We should eliminate these subsidies, lower the corporate tax rate, and allow the marketplace to pick winners and losers, not the government.

The ethanol tax is a perfect example. This year the ethanol tax credit cost taxpayers almost $6 billion in addition to the $41.2 billion we have already spent in subsidies on ethanol since 1980.

A recent CRS, Congressional Research Service, report indicates that tax credits and subsidies for solar, wind, and geothermal power will cost $8.6 billion from 2008 to 2012. For the oil and gas industry, the eight tax breaks recommended for elimination by President Obama would eliminate $43.6 billion in spending over 10 years. The largest among these tax breaks is the section 199 manufacturing tax subsidies that will cost approximately $18 billion over 10 years. We should eliminate the section 199 tax subsidies for all industries to avoid arbitrarily picking winners and losers. Why should we value manufacturing over other service providers?

Additionally, we should eliminate all agricultural subsidies, including sugar programs, end corporate welfare, and end tax breaks for corporations for things such as corporate jets. We need to put aside the rhetoric of corporate jets, which is just a poll-tested political phrase concocted behind one-way mirrors. Everyone knows eliminating all tax breaks on corporate jets would not amount to any real progress, but if we seriously looked at curbing corporate subsidies, such as the ethanol subsidy I just mentioned, then all Americans would benefit.

I feel the need to provide my colleagues with some straight talk. As the Journal notes, some of my Republican colleagues are ``insisting on a balanced budget amendment that can't pass Congress.'' Let me be clear--I am an avid supporter of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Since 1983, I have introduced or cosponsored more than a dozen bills or amendments calling for a balanced budget amendment, and I have had the privilege of

voting in favor of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution no less than 13 times in my Congressional career. I applaud my colleagues for their tireless dedication to this cause. But our reality today dictates that we do not have the votes in this body to enact such a measure. Perhaps that will change after next year. I hope so. But for our purposes today, in order to avoid what could be disastrous consequences for our markets, our economy as a whole, and our standing in the world, I encourage my colleagues to lay aside, at least temporarily, their insistence that amending the Constitution be a condition of their support for a solution to this terrible problem.

The Wall Street Journal editorial ends with this:

Think about it. On the current path both sides are headed

at best for a de minimis deal that makes everyone look bad,

at worst for a major political crack-up. Perhaps Mr. Obama

wants a crack-up to portray Republicans as extreme.

As my colleague from Massachusetts just did.

But Republicans should at least call his bluff and answer

his demands for fewer business tax deductions by saying yes--

in return for lower tax rates.

I couldn't agree more with the Wall Street Journal. This debate desperately needs a breakout strategy. I am pleased to see that President Clinton has joined the Wall Street Journal in embracing a commonsense solution to this problem. I hope President Obama will follow former President Clinton's lead and the example set by the great Ronald Reagan and put aside politics, work with the Congress on this matter, and accept a compromise that will allow us to responsibly deal with our debt while creating jobs and spurring economic growth.

I would like to point out again:

The average effective corporate rate varies by industry but

is far less than the 35 percent rate, and the injustice is

that some pay much less than others if they can afford

lobbyists to write loopholes or they invest in politically

correct purposes. Anyone not in thrall of class-war symbolism

understands that the U.S. corporate tax code provides the

worst of both worlds: It makes U.S. companies less

competitive even as it raises much less revenue than

advertised.

So the fact is, the corporate Tax Code needs to be reformed anyway, and we need to cut it to 25 percent. It is either the first or the second highest tax rate in the world. Yet somehow major corporations such as Whirlpool and GE end up paying no taxes, but yet small businesspeople who can't afford a lobbyist here in Washington end up paying the 35-percent rates if they are incorporated. It is time we tell the American people who are frustrated by our lack of leadership, by our failure to come together. It is time to end the rhetoric, fulfill the commitment we made to the American people last November who resoundingly sent the message that they want the spending cut and the mortgaging of our children's future stopped. This is a reasonable proposal that I believe, with spending cuts, can be a breakthrough that we can proudly return to our constituents and say we are taking care of them, not the special interests and not hide-bound ideology.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from South Carolina after I make a few remarks.

Madam President, it is pretty obvious that the Senate feels that its priorities--and I think they are well placed, particularly in light of the fact that the Fourth of July recess was canceled because of the issue of the debt limit and the deficit and our lack of action and need for action on the issue--I understand that and have suggested and agreed that this resolution on Libya be delayed. However, I would point out that the Senate does need to have a debate about United States policy and military action in Libya.

Whether my colleagues are supportive of what we are doing in Libya or not I think is an issue that needs to be debated on the floor of the Senate. I believe the Senate does play a constitutional role and maybe even a more unique one than the other body. So I think it is time we did have a debate, discussion of this issue, and an opinion rendered in keeping with the War Powers Act.

Unfortunately, the administration has made it far more difficult than it otherwise might have been if we had carried out our responsibilities and the President carried out his responsibilities some months ago. The fact is this conflict would have been over if we had taken a leadership role and declared a no-fly zone when the rebel forces were on their way to Benghazi.

The fact is, if the United States had used the full weight of its air assets in this conflict, Qadhafi would be gone now. And I would tell my colleagues, have no doubt, Qadhafi will go. He will go. The question is when. And what role did the United States of America play in supporting these people who are fighting for freedom? What role did the United States of America play in trying to free up Qadhafi's ill-gotten gains and have them given to the Transitional National Council? What role did the United States play in leading from behind in Libya?

The United States of America leads, not NATO. We lead NATO. And when someone says NATO is leading on this conflict, I would remind my colleagues, of the 28 members of NATO, only 8 members are actually in the fight, and one of our major allies, Germany, has taken a hike.

So if we had used the AC-130 gunships, the A-10 Warthog close air support capability, Qadhafi would be

gone now. But the fact is, he will go, and it is up to us, in my view, to express our support of people who are seeking the same rights and freedoms that are guaranteed to us.

I would remind my colleagues who said we never should have been involved in any way, it is a fact that Qadhafi and his forces were at the gates of Benghazi, a city of 700,000 people, and Qadhafi has said he would go house to house and kill--and kill--whoever they thought had resisted them.

We say we should never have allowed Srebrenica, where 8,000 people were massacred. We say we should never have allowed Rwanda to happen. We say we should never have allowed the Holocaust to happen. The United States did the right thing by stopping Qadhafi's forces at the gates of Benghazi and preventing the massacre of I do not know how many thousands of innocent civilians.

There is no doubt what Qadhafi has promised if he is able to remain in power--a man who has the blood of Americans on his hands because of the bombing of Pan Am 103, because of terrorist acts he supported in Africa--he will do so again and has pledged to do so.

When my colleagues ask what American national security interests are at stake, look at the man's past actions and look at what he has promised to do if he is able to stay in power; and that is, to pose a direct threat to the United States of America's vital national security interests.

We are involved in Libya. My colleague from South Carolina will testify we are providing refueling. We are providing intelligence. We are providing all kinds of assistance. We are including using Predators, which are killing the bad guys. So to somehow allege that the United States is not engaged in hostilities which would trigger the War Powers Act is simply sophistry. The Senate has been silent on this issue for too long, in my view.

But I also want to caution my colleagues about preventing United States action as well as authorizing.

The last time the Congress of the United States of America engaged in cutting off funding was at the end of the Vietnam war. Whether historians or people happen to acknowledge it, a lot of bad things happened after we cut off funding in Vietnam. Amongst them was millions of Vietnamese put in reeducation camps and thousands slaughtered. So I would caution my colleagues about actions of Congress which prohibit certain actions on the part of the administration. But most of all, America should lead.

We should use our air assets, not our ground assets, to get rid of this brutal dictator and his regime. Every day that goes by innocent civilians in Libya are wounded and killed.

So I would ask my colleague from South Carolina if he has a few words, but also to address the issue of how much U.S. involvement actually is there, which would then--by most objective observers-- trigger the Congress's requirement to act in keeping with the War Powers Act and our constitutional obligations.

I would ask my friend, is it not true that we are providing tanker support, logistics support, Predator strikes, intelligence, and all kinds of assets to those eight nations that are involved in the fight? When we are using Predators and killing people, that pretty well fits the definition of ``hostilities.'' Yet, for reasons which are still not clear to me, the administration fails to acknowledge that.

Could I also say one thing that is very concerning as well is this recognition of the Transitional National Council. I know my colleague-- because we were just in Turkey--noticed that another country, Turkey, one of the most important nations in the Middle East, just recognized the Transitional National Council, froze the assets that Qadhafi has. Yet this administration refuses to do so. There is some $30 billion, I am told, of Qadhafi assets that we could freeze and make available to the Transitional National Council. It may require some legislative action, but it requires administration leadership. They could then pay people, could provide arms and weapons to their own people, as well as subsidies for the government.

Again, an example of leading from behind--the French, the Italians, the Turks, and other nations have all now recognized the Transitional National

Council. Yet the United States has failed to do so.

I have been assured personally by the leadership of the Transitional National Council--by the way, one who has a doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh, and their Finance Minister was an economics professor at the University of Washington. So let's dispel any illusions about we do not know who they are. They are good and decent people who have risen up against an oppressive and repressive dictator and murderer. They want to reimburse the United States for our expenses, the way the Kuwaitis and the Saudis did after Operation Desert Storm.

But the point is that, again, anybody who believes that it is not in America's national security interest to see Qadhafi gone has paid no attention to his words and his actions. History will record how the United States stood on people who were struggling both peacefully and where it necessitated the use of force of arms, is where the United States of America was.

What is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from South Carolina.

In a few minutes we will be casting, I am sure, a 100-0 vote to confirm General David Petraeus as the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and obviously his nomination is supported by all Members of the Senate, and I am sure all Americans, especially those, such as the Senator from South Carolina and myself, who have had the great privilege and honor of knowing General Petraeus for many years and watching him lead the men and women serving in our military in a fashion that I have never seen surpassed. The Senator from South Carolina has had the unique privilege and responsibility to serve under General Petraeus in uniform, because, as most of our colleagues know, the Senator from South Carolina also serves as a colonel in the South Carolina National Guard and in the legal corps as a JAG officer.

The Senator from South Carolina has worked with General Petraeus both in Iraq and Afghanistan on many of the important issues concerning detainees as well as other issues. Before I ask the Senator from South Carolina for his comments, I wish to repeat what I said before. I don't believe that in my life, which has been blessed to know many outstanding military leaders of all branches of the service, I have ever quite encountered a military leader or civilian leader, for that matter, with the combination of charisma and intellect General Petraeus possesses. The Senator from South Carolina, the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and I had the unique opportunity, among many visits we made to Iraq and Afghanistan, one Fourth of July in 2007 to be present at a reenlistment ceremony that took place in the palace in Baghdad. There were a couple of thousand spectators and there were well over 200 young men and women who had agreed to reenlist, to continue to serve in Iraq when they could have fulfilled their commitment they made to serve in the military and gone home to their families and a grateful nation. Instead, they chose to reenlist, to stay, and continue the fight. Part of that ceremony was to administer the oath of citizenship to over 75 people who were not born in the United States of America, who were not citizens, who were green card holders, who were legally in the United States as green card holders but had joined the military in order to serve and to achieve an accelerated path to citizenship.

What struck me at that ceremony was that in the front row there were three empty seats with boots on them of individuals who were green card holders who were scheduled to take the oath of citizenship and who had been killed in the previous few days in action, serving their country in Iraq.

I was privileged to speak. The Senator from South Carolina spoke. The Senator from Connecticut spoke. But when General David Petraeus spoke to those assembled men and women who are serving their country, it was very obvious of the not only respect but admiration every one of those young Americans felt for the inspirational leadership General Petraeus had provided them. I might point out it was a time when most experts and many politicians and Members of this body predicted the surge would fail. Well, I think what they didn't take into account was the incredible leadership and implementation of a strategy that was embodied by GEN David Petraeus and the young men and women who are serving.

So I am confident as we continue the fight against al-Qaida and the radical Islamic extremists who want to attack and destroy our country, that now General Petraeus, soon to be Director of the CIA, will provide our Nation with the very best strategy, tactics, thought, and action to keep our Nation safe.

I don't very often come and talk about nominees and spend the Senate's time, but I know I express the appreciation and affection of all those men and women, both serving now and in the past, who had the great honor and privilege of serving under General Petraeus and to wish him a well done and smooth sailing and following winds as he assumes his new responsibilities which will continue to keep America safe.

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