Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am aware that most of my colleagues are taking the floor today to speak about the potential shutdown of the government, and very appropriately so. I am strongly opposed to a government shutdown, as we all are. I especially want to note its adverse effects on our men and women in uniform.

Of course, I have joined so many of my colleagues in cosponsoring the Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011. The last thing our men and women and their families need to worry about is how to make ends meet while they are taking up arms to defend the Nation's interests.

I rise to talk about the deteriorating situation in Libya which could have more profound effects than the crisis we are in. It is a very serious, very deteriorating situation and one which is fraught with severe implications for America's national security interests.

I remain a strong supporter of the President's decision to take military action in Libya. It averted what was an imminent slaughter in Benghazi and has given us a chance to achieve the goal of U.S. policy as stated correctly by the President: to force Qadhafi to leave power. I am also grateful we have capable friends, our Arab partners, and NATO allies, who are making critical contributions. But that is not a substitute for U.S. leadership. Right now that is the main missing ingredient in the coalition's efforts in Libya--the willingness of the administration to take decisive actions, together with our partners, so that we can accomplish our goal as quickly as possible rather than look to our allies to do it all themselves, which I fear the evidence is mounting they cannot do.

The administration has chosen to stop flying strike missions against Qadhafi's forces, even though they continue to threaten Libyan civilians and even though our NATO allies cannot match our unique capabilities in this regard. The administration correctly declared that forcing Qadhafi from power is a goal of U.S. policy, but our military mission is not working toward that goal by actively seeking to degrade Qadhafi's forces, thereby increasing the pressure on him to leave power.

At a time when Qadhafi's forces are adapting to NATO's tactics and capabilities and concealing themselves in populated civilian areas, the administration has grounded our most effective aircraft, the A-10 and the AC-130, which are the only planes--the only planes--that are capable of conducting the kinds of precise air-to-ground operations now required to protect civilians under the current circumstances. Not surprisingly, Qadhafi's forces are now regaining the momentum on the ground.

We cannot succeed with half-measures. Right now, our actions are not adding up to a strategy that appears capable of achieving our goals. To the contrary, we seem to be failing to prevent the situation on the ground in Libya from sliding into a stalemate.

Just yesterday, GEN Carter Hamm, the commander of U.S. Africa Command, who led Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, told the Armed Services Committee that a stalemate in Libya, where Qadhafi remains in power to pose an even greater threat to the world and to the Libyan people, is not in America's interest or in anyone's interest. But in the same hearing yesterday, General Hamm also conceded that the situation on the ground in Libya is ``more likely'' of becoming a stalemate now then when this intervention began. I am afraid I agree with the general.

I would like to highlight some of the news my colleagues may have missed.

Yesterday, there was an airstrike that, unfortunately--the Washington Post: ``NATO's credibility takes a hit in Libya.''

Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi went back on

the offensive . . . as questions continued to mount about the

credibility and effectiveness of NATO's no-fly zone and

campaign of airstrikes.

A senior U.S. general described the situation in Libya as a

stalemate, while Turkey said it was talking to both sides

working on a ``road map'' for a cease-fire. In the meantime,

Gaddafi is seeking what military advantage he can get and

probing for gaps in NATO's resolve. . . .

The day also ignited new confusion and outrage among rebels

in Ajdabiya after warplanes strafed rebel forces and killed

at least five people, including two doctors. Rebels first

accused NATO of targeting them. . . . By Thursday night, it

was still unclear who attacked. . . .

Abdul Fattah Younis, the rebel's commander, told reporters

that if NATO had attacked their tanks, it was a mistake, and

if Gaddafi's airplanes had been allowed to strike them, it

was an ``even bigger mistake.''

Quoting the New York Times:

As for the current air war, NATO is especially sensitive to

the criticism that came most scathingly from the leader of

the Libyan opposition forces, Gen. Abdul Fattah Younes. He

said in Benghazi late Tuesday that ``NATO blesses us every

now and then with a bombardment here and there, and is

letting the people of Misurata die every day.''

So we relieved a humanitarian--let's get this straight, my friends-- we relieved a humanitarian disaster in Benghazi, and now, because of either ineptitude or lack of resolve or lack of capability or all of the above, we are now watching a massacre--certainly human suffering of enormous proportions in Misurata.

There is another article from the Guardian: ``NATO lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign.''

There is a New York Times editorial today. Interestingly, the New York Times says:

There is a much better option: the American A-10 and AC-130

aircraft used earlier in the Libya fighting and still on

standby status. President Obama should authorize these planes

to fly again under NATO command. Unlike the highflying

supersonic French and British jets now carrying the main

burden of the air war, these American planes can fly slow

enough and low enough to let them see and target Colonel

Qaddafi's weapons without unduly endangering nearby

populations.

Facts are stubborn things. The fact is that now the situation is deteriorating. The suffering goes on, and America and our allies appear to be showing that we are incapable or unwilling to address a third- rate military power, ruled by a man who has the blood of 190 Americans on his hands, who has been involved in terrorist activities throughout the world, who went outside of Benghazi and said: We will go house to house and kill every one of you. And the situation is deteriorating into stalemate.

So what do we need to do?

First, we need to get U.S. Armed Forces, especially our A-10s and AC- 130s, back in the business of flying strike missions against Qadhafi's

forces--not just as part of our effort to protect civilians but to work toward the goal of our actual policy, which is to impose enough pressure on the regime to compel Qadhafi and his family to leave power.

Second, the United States should work with our friends and allies to help the opposition government in Benghazi, the Transitional National Council, to gain access to some of the tens of billions of dollars worth of funds that have been frozen from the Qadhafi regime.

Third, we need to help the opposition to Qadhafi communicate more effectively, while shutting down Qadhafi's ability to broadcast his propaganda. Qadhafi has cut off land lines, mobile networks, and the Internet. While top opposition leaders have satellite phones, we have both humanitarian and strategic interests in restoring the ability of people in liberated parts of Libya to communicate with each other and the rest of the world. We should take steps to get Qadhafi's satellite, television, and radio broadcasts off the air. U.S. diplomacy is urgently needed to get those countries that have satellite providers broadcasting Qadhafi's propaganda to drop those communications immediately.

Fourth, the United States should follow France, Qatar, and Italy in recognizing the opposition government, the Transitional National Council, as the sole legitimate government of Libya.

I hear again and again: We don't know who these people are. Well, I will tell you who they are. They are people who rose up against an oppressive and brutal dictator and wanted to assert their rights for freedom and democracy. That is who they are.

Any allegation that they are dominated by al-Qaida is patently false. We did not know who was going to come after Hitler, but we wanted him gone. So this continuous stream that somehow this is al-Qaida--it is not al-Qaida; it is people who want freedom and democracy. They rose up peacefully, as the Tunisians did and the Egyptians did and as others across the Middle East and north Africa are now doing for greater political freedom, economic opportunity, and justice. That is why this regional awakening, which some are calling the Arab spring, rather than helping al-Qaida, is, in fact, the greatest repudiation of al-Qaida the world has ever seen.

Fifth, we need to facilitate the provision of weapons to the Libyan opposition, as well as command and control technology, training, battlefield intelligence, and other capabilities that can strengthen their ability to increase the pressure on Qadhafi to leave power.

I want to reiterate that I do not support nor do I believe is necessary American ground troops under any circumstances. We should be able to, with a combination of the robust implementation of these five measures, drive Qadhafi from power and give the Libyan people their God-given rights.

I want to say again that I see on cable time after time that we do not know who these people are and they may be al-Qaida. I will tell you who they are. They are people who do not want to live under oppressive, repressive brutal regimes. And the more of a stalemate, the more likely al-Qaida forces will infiltrate and gain power. The quicker Qadhafi leaves power, the more likely it is we will see a dramatic transition.

We cannot say--we cannot say--we intervened in Libya to prevent a slaughter in Benghazi only to see one in Misurata or some other city. If we stay our present course, that is what will likely happen. We need decisive actions, not half-measures. We need to be leading. America must lead. NATO is America. We need to be leading in a strong and sustained way, not sitting on the side lines or playing a supporting role. We have the right goal in Libya. The President was right to intervene in the first place, but now we need to take the necessary steps to finish the job.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the articles I referred to be printed in the Record.

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

I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Oklahoma.

I have a couple of questions for the Senator from Oklahoma. My understanding is that he seeks to have an amendment considered that would eliminate the subsidies which are $4 billion?

It is $4.9 billion and the recipients themselves want it reversed?

So the recipients of this government largesse would want it eliminated. What is the basis, if I may ask, of the opposition to the amendment?

If the argument is that maybe we ought to eliminate this but not abruptly, wasn't the message of last November 2 that they wanted a lot of things done abruptly?

That was my understanding, that as part of the beginning of the new session of Congress, the 112th Congress, there were going to be amendments allowed; that there would be kind of a different environment where it would not be bringing up a bill, filing cloture and shutting out Members from offering amendments. That is apparently not the case?

Near an all-time high.

I understand this amendment has been objected to by some ``conservative organizations'' that want us not to increase taxes in any way, shape, or form, something that has characterized the voting record of the Senator from Oklahoma and myself. But now you are being attacked for being a tax increaser?

What is the argument?

And it seems to me that this issue has some complexities to it----

That the average citizen would not understand. But I think they understand $4.9 billion and that those savings would accrue to them, along with the reduction in inflation and the costs of the products of corn.

So it is a very interesting situation. So when I go back home and some of my constituents are skeptical about whether we are really serious about taking on some of the sacred cows--and certainly ethanol has been a sacred cow around here--maybe there is some justification for their skepticism.

Well, I think the Senator has made a strong point. I just wanted to have a clarification, and I hope that perhaps we can also start addressing the issue of sugar subsidies, which I think is probably one of the really great ripoffs in America today, again, causing the cost of any confection or anything that contains sugar to rise, and then, of course, the American consumers pay for it, and preventing sugar from other countries from coming into this country at a lower price.

I was watching.

But if you believe in our great Nation and the democracy and the representative government that it is, over time, you will succeed. It requires tenacity. I do not think the Senator will be elected Mr. Congeniality this year again, either, but I appreciate his efforts on this issue and many others. I look forward to continuing to join him in the fight and following his leadership.

I yield the floor.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business.

I would like to take time today to address the ongoing situation in Libya. Last night, the President made a strong defense of our military action in Libya. I welcome his remarks, and I appreciate that he explained why this intervention was both right and necessary, especially in light of the unprecedented democratic awakening that is now sweeping the broader Middle East.

There has been much criticism of the President's handling of the situation in Libya--some legitimate, some not. But the fact is, because we did act, the United States and our coalition partners averted a strategic and humanitarian disaster in Libya.

Even as we seek adjustments to U.S. policy where appropriate to ensure that we accomplish the U.S. goal as stated by the President of forcing Qadhafi to leave power, I believe the President's decision to intervene in Libya deserves strong bipartisan support in Congress and among all Americans.

It is worth remembering, especially for the critics of this intervention, exactly what we would be facing in Libya now had we not taken action. Just over 1 week ago, Qadhafi was bearing down on Benghazi, a city of 700,000 people, and the main seat of the Libyan opposition, as well as the provisional government that has now emerged.

Qadhafi pledged in his words: No mercy for these people. He pledged to go house to house, to crush everyone opposed to him. Had we not taken action in Libya, Benghazi would now be remembered in the same breath as Srebrenica, a scene of mass slaughter and a source of international shame.

Libyan refugees would now be streaming into Egypt and Tunisia destabilizing those critical countries during their already daunting political transitions. If we had allowed Qadhafi to slaughter Arabs and Muslims in Benghazi who were pleading for the U.S. military to rescue them, America's moral standing in the broader Middle East would have been devastated. Al-Qaida and other violent extremists would have exploited the resulting chaos and hopelessness. The forces of counterrevolution in the region would have gotten the message that the world would tolerate the violent oppression of peaceful demonstrations for universal rights. This would have been a dramatic setback for the Arab spring which represents the most consequential geopolitical opportunity in centuries.

That is why Libya matters and why we were right to intervene. Yes, there are many other places in the world where evil resides, where monsters brutalize civilians. The United States cannot and should not intervene in all of these places. But we were right to do so in Libya because of the unique position this country now occupies at a moment of historic change in the Middle East and North Africa. This does not mean we should take the same actions toward other countries in the region as we have toward Libya.

Each of these countries is different. Their challenges and situations are different. When governments, both friend and foe, use force and oppression to crush peaceful demands for universal rights, we need to be clear in our condemnation, and we need to support the aspirations of all people who seek greater freedom, justice, and economic opportunity.

But let's be clear. Qadhafi's brutal and vicious slaughter of fellow Arabs and Muslims has set Libya completely apart from other countries in the region, and it warranted the decisive military response we and our international partners have taken. While some believe the President should have sought a congressional authorization for the use of force, or even a formal declaration of war prior to taking military action in Libya, I think his actions were in keeping both with the constitutional powers of the President and with past practices, be it President Reagan's action in Grenada or President Clinton's action in the Balkans.

Had Congress taken even a few days to debate the use of force prior to acting in Libya, there would have been nothing left to save in Benghazi. That is why our Founders gave the President the power as Commander in Chief to respond swiftly and energetically to crises. What we need now is not a debate about the past; that can come later. Many of us who wanted a no-fly zone at the time still are convinced that this could have been over by now. But the fact is, it is in the past.

What we need is a forward-looking strategy to accomplish the U.S. goal--as articulated by the President--of forcing Qadhafi to leave power. We have prevented the worst outcome in Libya, but we have not yet secured our goal. As some of us predicted, U.S. and coalition airpower has decisively and quickly reversed the momentum of Qadhafi's forces, but now we need to refine U.S. strategy to achieve success as quickly as possible.

As every military strategist knows, the purpose of employing military force is to achieve policy goals. Our goal in Libya is that Qadhafi must go, and it is the right goal. But let's be honest with ourselves: We are indeed talking about regime change, whether the President wants to call it that or not. While I agree with the President that we should not send U.S. ground troops to Libya to remove Qadhafi from power, that is exactly what Libyan opposition forces are fighting to do. They are now on the outskirts of Qadhafi's hometown of Surt, and they appear to have no intention of stopping there.

Thus far, U.S. and coalition airpower has cleared a path for the opposition to advance. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 authorizes the use of ``all necessary measures'' to protect civilians in Libya. As long as Qadhafi remains in power, he will pose an increasing danger to the world, and civilians in Libya will not be safe.

Ultimately, we need to be straight with the American people and with ourselves. We are not neutral in the conflict in Libya. We want the opposition to succeed, and we want Qadhafi to leave power. These are just causes. And we must therefore provide the necessary and appropriate assistance to aid the opposition in their fight. That certainly means continuing to use air power to degrade Qadhafi's military forces in the field, and I am encouraged by the fact that we are now bringing in AC-130 and A-10 attack aircraft to provide more close-in air support.

This is the Libyan people's fight, but we need to continue to help make it a fairer fight, until Qadhafi is forced to leave power. I was very encouraged today to hear our ambassador to the United Nations suggest that the United States may provide arms to the opposition. We should also provide them, if requested and as appropriate, with resources, command and control technology, communications equipment, battlefield intelligence, and training. We need to take every responsible measure to help the Libyan opposition change the balance of power on the ground.

Yes, it has been documented that many eastern Libyans went to fight in Iraq, Many met their end there too. But Libyans are not rising up against Qadhafi now under the banner of al-Qaida. To the contrary, they have largely pledged their support to the Transitional National Council, which is based in Benghazi, and representative of tribes and communities across Libya. The leaders of this council are not unknown to us. They have met with senior administration officials, including the Secretary of State, as well as other world leaders. Their supporters are brave lawyers, students, and human rights advocates who just want to choose their own future free from Qadhafi. They have declared their vision for Libya as, quote, ``a constitutional democratic civil state based on the rule of law, respect for human rights and the guarantee of equal rights and opportunities for all its citizens.'' If these moderate, democratic forces do not succeed in Libya, we know exactly who would fill the void: the radicals and the ideologues. We have seen this movie before.

We cannot make the assumption that time is on our side. It is not. Perhaps Qadhafi's regime will crack tomorrow. I hope it will. But hope is not a strategy. If our strategy does not succeed in forcing Qadhafi to leave power sooner rather than later, we run the risk of a prolonged and bloody stalemate. That is not in America's interest or in the interest of the Libyan people. The risks are still too high of repeating a similar outcome from the first gulf war--where we had crushing sanctions and a no-fly zone in place, but still Saddam Hussein managed to hold onto power, threaten the world, and brutalize his own people for another 12 years. And only then, it took an armed invasion to remove him from power. That is not a definition of success in Libya. And it certainly is not a limited mission. It is a recipe for a costly and indefinite stalemate. We must avert that outcome.

Our mission in Libya is going well, but we have not yet accomplished our goal. I am extremely thankful and grateful for our many friends and allies, especially our Arab partners, who are contributing to this mission. However, none of this is a substitute for sustained U.S. leadership. If our goal in Libya is worth fighting for, and I believe it is, then the United States must remain strongly engaged to force Qadhafi to leave power. Nothing less is desirable or sustainable.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Republican leader for 3 minutes.

Madam President, I say to my friend and leader and to all my colleagues, it is of deep concern to the Secretary of Defense and to this Member, and I am sure many other Members, that we are defending this Nation on a 2-week-to-2-week basis, and it is harming our ability to defend this Nation's national security. I know we are probably now going to go into another 3-week continuing resolution.

Is it the intention of the Republican leader, along with myself and others, that we will not do another continuing resolution unless we take up a Defense appropriations bill for the year? We can't do this to the men and women who are serving--deprive them of the equipment, the training, and wherewithal--when we are in two wars. It is vital, in my view, that we not allow another continuing resolution without addressing the Defense appropriations bill for, hopefully, what should be the remainder of the year.

I thank the Republican leader, and I thank my colleague from Louisiana. I hope this message is transmitted to our friends and colleagues on the other side of the Capitol; that they should not send over another CR without funding the Defense Department for the rest of the year.

I thank the Senator.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business for 20 minutes instead of 10.

And, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after my opening statement, my colleague from Connecticut be allowed to give his statement, and then I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy. And I understand the Senator from Connecticut may be using his 10 minutes. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, today my colleague, Senator Lieberman, and I are preparing to submit a resolution on the situation in Libya.

Mr. President, is it allowed to send to the desk a resolution even though we are in morning business and its consideration be delayed until the appropriate time?

Mr. President, the wording of the resolution is a sense of the Senate. It is pretty simple and straightforward. It calls for a recognition of the provisional revolutionary government in Libya, and it calls for placing as rapidly as possible a no-fly zone over Libya. It has some other language associated with it, which I would go into later on. But the fact is, what it does is urge the President of the United States to take long-overdue action to prevent the massacres that are taking place in Libya as we speak. At this moment, opponents of Colonel Qadhafi and his supporters are fighting for their very survival.

The demands of the Libyan people began much like those of their neighbors in North Africa and the Middle East--for the protection of their universal rights, for greater political freedom and representative government, for justice and opportunity. But the response of Qadhafi and those still loyal to him stands in stark contrast to the inspiring events of what some are calling the Arab spring. Qadhafi has unleashed a merciless campaign of violence against the Libyan people, including civilian noncombatants, using every tool at his disposal, from artillery barrages, to airstrikes, to the employment of foreign mercenaries. As President Bill Clinton correctly stated last week, ``It is not a fair fight.''

It is not a fair fight, and now the hour is growing dark. Over the past week, the momentum has increasingly shifted away from the opposition and toward Qadhafi--showing once again what a lot of us understand about warfare: that a smaller well-trained, well-equipped force can usually prevail over a larger less-trained and less-equipped force.

One by one, towns that had been liberated by the opposition are now falling to Qadhafi's forces. We are only now beginning to learn the savage cost of those losses, especially on the civilian population--the women, children, and elderly who could neither fight nor flee Qadhafi's rampage and, of course, those brave Libyan rebels, or the many suspected of aiding their cause, who face certain death or perhaps a fate worse than death. We are horrified by what we have learned already, but what we have yet to learn and what we could still witness if Qadhafi's forces are allowed to finish this unfair fight will shock and offend the conscience of the entire world.

Last week, in a hearing in the Committee on Armed Services, the Director of National Intelligence said that absent outside assistance to the opposition, ``I think over the long term that the [Qadhafi] regime will prevail.'' And yet it is the policy of the United States, as stated by the President, that ``Qaddafi must step down from power and leave.'' That is the right policy, but it is increasingly at odds now with the facts on the ground.

So we face a stark choice: either the President and the United States take

greater action to achieve the objectives he has laid out or we allow events to play out as they are, meaning that Qadhafi reclaims control of their country.

The resolution Senator Lieberman and I are submitting calls on the President to take a number of steps immediately to reverse this impending disaster.

First, the President should recognize Libya's Transitional National Council, which is based in Benghazi but representative of communities across the country as the sole legitimate governing authority of Libya--just as the government of France has done. President Sarkozy and the French have recognized the sole legitimate government in Libya as the provisional government which is based in Benghazi.

Some continue to say we do not know who the opposition is and, thus, we cannot assist them. That is ridiculous. They have been organized for weeks. Their senior leaders consist of longstanding critics of Qadhafi as well as officials who recently broke with his regime. They even have a Web site. And they are asking--they are pleading; they are pleading-- for international support.

Qadhafi has forfeited the right to power through his vicious actions. We must recognize the opposition government.

Second, the President should take immediate steps to implement a no- fly zone in Libya with international support. Not only has the Libyan opposition government called for this, the Gulf Cooperation Council has called for a no-fly zone. The head of the Organization of the Islamic Conference has called for a no-fly zone. On Saturday, the Arab League called for a no-fly zone. The French and British Governments have voiced their support and have drafted a U.N. Security Council resolution to implement a no-fly zone. It is long past time for the President of the United States to answer these calls for international leadership. The United States of America must lead.

A no-fly zone was never going to be the decisive action that tipped the balance against Qadhafi, even when Senator Lieberman and I called for it nearly 3 weeks ago, but it remains the case that a no-fly zone would take one of Qadhafi's most lethal tools off the table and thereby boost the confidence of Libya's opposition. It is Libyans themselves who want to do the fighting against Qadhafi, but they want it to be a fair fight, and so should we.

Finally, the President should develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to accomplish the stated U.S. objective of Qadhafi leaving power. Beyond a no-fly zone and beyond those actions such as sanctions and humanitarian assistance that we are already taking, there are many actions we could consider, from sharing intelligence on Qadhafi's forces with the opposition, to providing them with support for command and control, to technical assistance, and even forms of security assistance if they request it--we could jam Qadhafi's communications and his television--and if we can provide it in a responsible way.

Our window of opportunity to support the Libyan people is closing quickly, and this country has a choice to make. Are we going to take action to support the people of Libya in their fight for freedom or are we going to stand by doing more than nothing but less than enough to achieve our stated goal of Qadhafi leaving power?

We all say we support the universal rights of the Arabs and Muslims in countries across the Middle East and North Africa who are inspiring us all in their quest for greater freedom, opportunity, and justice. But Libya is the real test. It is the test of whether we will provide our support not just when it is easy but when it is difficult, when it requires more of us than just speeches and expressions of solidarity. If Qadhafi is allowed to prevail in Libya and crush his opponents, it will send a signal throughout the region that force is the way to respond to peaceful demands for a better life, and it will cause all of our expressions of support for the universal rights of all people to ring far more hollow.

Before I yield to my friend from Connecticut, I would like to point out that now we have former President Clinton, we have the Arab League, we have the French, the British, other nations throughout the world, and organizations in the region and without that are saying--crying out--that we need to help these people. And when President Obama says the noose is tightening around Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi, in fact, it is tightening around the Libyan rebels. And the way he is doing it and what he is doing to his own people are crimes against humanity.

It is time we stood up. It is time we read from the New York Times this morning an article by Anne-Marie Slaughter entitled ``Fiddling While Libya Burns.'' It is time we read again, from Saturday, the Wall Street Journal's lead editorial entitled ``The Obama Doctrine, Libya is what a world without U.S. leadership looks like.''

``This is the Obama conception of the U.S. role in the

world--to work through multilateral organizations and

bilateral relationships to make sure that the steps we are

taking are amplified.''

That was by National Security Council spokesman Ben Rhodes, as quoted in the Washington Post.

``They bombed us with tanks, airplanes, missiles coming

from every direction. . . . We need international support, at

least a no-fly zone. Why is the world not supporting us?''

That is from Libyan rebel Mahmoud Abdel Hamid, on March 10, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal.

These people are crying out for help. They are fighting for freedom. They are fighting an unequal situation on the battlefield. The least we can do--the very least we can do--is recognize them in their struggle for freedom and give them some assistance; otherwise, as the President's National Security Adviser stated on Friday: Qadhafi will prevail. That will send a signal throughout the world that we will have Tiananmen Squares in this world, not Tahrir Squares.

I yield to my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. President, I ask my friend from Connecticut if we couldn't review a few of the facts as they are now. Despite the fact that the President made a statement that I am still bewildered by--I believe it was Saturday or Friday when the President said the noose is tightening around Colonel Muammar Qadhafi.

I think the facts on the ground indicate that with superior firepower, the ability to strike from the air, even if those strikes are not particularly effective--although, apparently, they are becoming more effective--and well-trained and well-equipped small forces, Colonel Qadhafi has been able to reverse the tide on the battlefield rather dramatically. All of the news reports are that the military situation on the ground has shifted dramatically in favor of Qadhafi's forces.

General Clapper, our Director of National Intelligence, said on Thursday that Qadhafi is likely to win in the long term. Then, on the other side of the coin, the President of the United States has said Qadhafi must go.

So I guess my first question to my colleague is--as the Wall Street Journal says, if Qadhafi survives, after Mr. Obama has told him to go, the blow to U.S. prestige and world order would be enormous. Dictators will learn that the way to keep America from acting is to keep its diplomats and citizens around while mowing down your opponents as the world debates contingency. By the time the babblers make a decision, it will be too late. This is a dangerous message to send at any time but especially with the Middle East in the throes of revolution.

American prestige is now on the line. The battlefield situation is that the tide is obviously against the prodemocracy forces. Wouldn't the message be sent to any dictator in any region of the world that rather than accept a situation such as happened in Egypt and Tunisia, send in the tanks, send in the military, slaughter people without consequence? Is that the lesson we would be sending, I ask my friend from Connecticut?

Mr. President, I say to my friend that I think that is a strong and eloquent statement. I admit to the fact that the terrible tragedy that has transpired in Japan is one that has riveted the attention of our Nation and the world. Our hearts go out to the Japanese people and their government in this terrible time of trial. There is no way we can diminish the tragedy they are experiencing. But it is a natural disaster that was the catalyst for that terrible situation.

Meanwhile, in Libya, we have a human catalyst named Muammar Qadhafi. I admit and I will confess to having such a dull life that I watch a lot of cable television. I see expert after expert come before the cameras and give us reasons the United States should do nothing.

I commend to my colleagues for reading an article in today's New York Times by Anne-Marie Slaughter, formerly in policy planning at the State Department, as I understand it, in this administration or in another. It does respond to what we will hear continuously. The article is entitled ``Fiddling While Libya Burns.''

At the beginning, she points out that the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and now the Arab League have all called for imposing a no-fly zone. She runs through the objections raised by various individuals and ``experts.'' One part is entitled ``It's Not In Our Interest.'' One is entitled ``It Will Be Counterproductive.'' Another is ``It Won't Work.'' Another is ``If It Does Work, We Don't Know What We Will Get.'' The last is ``Let's Arm The Rebels Instead.''

It addresses most of the main arguments. The only one I think should be added to this list is the likelihood that things are happening in Libya today, as we speak, that will remind us that several times in the last century--and even in this one--we said never again. We said never again after Srebenica, after Rwanda, after the Holocaust, and on several other occasions when nations stood by while slaughter was taking place.

Is there anyone who believes that Qadhafi has not practiced in the past, is practicing now, and will practice in the future unspeakable cruelties which will be inflicted upon his people who dare to stand up to him? So I say to my friend: Here we are.

We know what happened in Tripoli and what happened with air attacks that are taking place on defenseless individuals. We watch these brave young people go out there with the Kalashnikovs and other things and fight against the tanks and air power. As former President Clinton said so eloquently: It is not a fair fight. It is not a fair fight.

I guess there will be other consultations with our allies that we will undertake. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State is meeting with the leadership of the provisional government. I hope she will, as a result of that meeting, ask for the U.S. recognition of that organization as the legitimate government of the country of Libya. I hope all these things will happen. But, meanwhile, events are unfolding on the ground every second and minute, and the longer we wait to act, more Libyans will die. This is a preventable situation.

The events in Japan, we can argue, were not preventable. It was an act of God. What is happening in Libya is an act of a brutal tyrant and sadist who is willing to butcher his own people. We are doing everything we can, and we will do everything we can to help the people of Japan. We ought to be doing what we can to keep the people of Libya from a fate that, in some cases, to some individuals, may be worse than death.

I hope the majority leader will allow a vote on this sense-of-the- Senate resolution as soon as possible. I understand there will be those who may like to see slightly different language. We would be glad to change the language somewhat, but we will not change the message. The message is that the United States of America--the Senate of the United States is standing on the side of people who are standing up for freedom and democracy, a universal value that we treasure. We will not stint in our obligations. Those who say the most powerful Nation in the world is incapable of helping these people by installing a no-fly zone, I think that is not substantiated by the facts.

GEN Raymond Odierno said the other day that we could install a no-fly zone in just a few days. We could have naval power offshore that could enforce it in a variety of ways, from the sea as well as from the air. Also, it is very clear to me that if Libyan pilots are told if they fly they are going to die, a lot of them would not fly.

I don't want to focus so much attention on the no-fly zone as I do on what is happening to the people of Libya as we speak and the repercussions that could take place throughout the globe. I hope we can vote on this sooner rather than later. I ask my friend from Connecticut--I believe we are nearly out of time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Wall Street Journal editorial entitled ``The Obama Doctrine,'' the New York Times article, ``Fiddling While Libya Burns,'' and, from the Daily Beast, an interview with the Libyan resistance leader, entitled ``Rebel Leader: Give Us A Chance,'' be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, there was a vote on a 2-week continuing resolution to fund the government, and it was divided along party lines. I voted for passage of H.R. 1, the House- passed continuing resolution, which will fund the Federal Government for the remainder of the fiscal year. I supported this measure because I believe it is a critical first step toward reining in our deficit and debt and putting us back on a path to fiscal solvency.

I appreciate the hard work of my colleagues in the House. Their efforts required a lot of compromise and tough decisions. I supported passage of H.R. 1, but I have serious concerns with the defense-related spending of this bill.

The defense-related spending on H.R. 1 is not sufficient for us to carry out our responsibilities to the men and women who are serving in the military and fulfill our national security requirements. Therefore, if we are going to embark on another 2-week continuing resolution, as it appears that reports indicate may be the case, then I will be compelled to propose an amendment that will then fund our Nation's national security requirements for the remainder of the year. That number, as I have determined it, is approximately $535 billion for normal defense appropriations, and $159 billion for war funding, known as overseas contingency operations.

The Secretary of Defense, with whom I have disagreed from time to time--which I think is natural and appropriate--I believe is perhaps the finest Secretary of Defense who has ever served this Nation in many respects. I am sure there are others who were outstanding. But in recent memory, I have not met a person who has led our Defense Department with the qualities of leadership and dedication as Secretary Gates. I pay close attention--and I hope all of us do--particularly to the fact that we have Americans in harm's way in two wars and the turmoil that now is present in the Middle East, in the Arab world, in the Maghreb.

The Secretary of Defense has said unequivocally that he cannot guarantee

we are defending this Nation's vital national security interests if we continue on a 2-week by 2-week by 2-week sequence. There is not the kind of funding nor the kind of assurance to the men and women serving that we can adequately train and equip and make them fight at their highest efficiencies and capabilities. I disagree--and I will list some of the areas where I disagree--with the funding requirements. I don't agree with the number the Secretary of Defense has said, which is $540 billion. I think we can do it with $535 billion.

The fact is we can't subject our Nation's national security to a 2- week by 2-week process. It is not the way the Defense Department can function and this Nation can defend itself and its vital national security interests. We owe it to the men and women serving in harm's way as we speak.

The aspects of the Defense Appropriations bill that need to be taken away, eliminated, are $300 million for medical research. I am sure the medical research is important, but it has nothing to do with national defense. Within that $300 million is $15 million for peer-reviewed Alzheimer's research, $150 million for peer-reviewed breast cancer research, $12.8 million for peer-reviewed lung cancer research, $20 million for peer-reviewed ovarian cancer research, $80 million for peer-reviewed prostate cancer research, and $4.8 million for multiple sclerosis--all of which are worthy causes, but none have anything to do with defending this country. If they want them to be funded--and they deserve to be in many respects--they should come out of the Health and Human Services Appropriations, not out of Defense.

What has happened around here over the years is what I'll call the ``Willie Sutton syndrome.'' He was the famous bank robber. They once asked him why he robbed banks. He said: That is where the money is. So some special interests have wanted funding for various projects that are either good or bad, or programs that are either good or bad, which have nothing to do with defense. We cannot afford those anymore. If we want to fund a program, it should come out of the appropriate area of responsibility of the Appropriations Committee.

Both bills include about $70 million for private organizations and charities, such as $24 million for the Red Cross, $1.2 million for the Special Olympics, $20 million for youth mentoring grants--all worthy causes and all not defense related.

Both bills direct $550 million for nondefense public infrastructure projects, such as $250 million for improvements to local schools that are not part of the Department of Defense school system. If they need to be funded, take it out of the proper appropriations moneys. It also includes $300 million for roads.

Equally troubling is the way the bills make objectionable changes to the overseas contingency operations funding--the OCO. The overseas contingency operation funds are specifically for Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of the bills cut the Iraq security force funding by $500 million. They also shift funding for nine F-18 Hornets from base to the overseas contingency operations, despite the fact that we have not lost an F-18, and that is $500 million. It shifts $500 million in funding for UAVs from the base, where they were properly requested, to OCO. They should not be designated to overseas contingency operations. They fund 20 additional missile defense interceptors for $190 million, and they include more than $37 million in funding support for the southwest border for the National Guard. I strongly support funding for the southwest border--to have it secured--and I will continue to advocate for that, but it doesn't apply to overseas contingency operations.

As we proceed, I intend to work to remove the nondefense-related spending from these bills, restore that funding to DOD priorities, including full funding for our troops in combat and the costs needed to maintain and restore their equipment.

I don't know if the government will be shut down. I don't know where there will be compromise. I don't know if we will engage in entitlement reform and all of the different scenarios that we could draw as to what is going to happen here at high noon in the great drama of our Nation's Capitol. We cannot forget that we are in 2 wars; that we have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and approximately 50,000 in Iraq--those are rough numbers--not to mention other civilians and members of the diplomatic corps and other parts of the U.S. Government.

We cannot force them to live 2 weeks by 2 weeks by 2 weeks and not be sufficiently funded. I will be glad to engage with my colleagues in vigorous debate. Maybe they are able to find more ways to save money from our defense spending--and I am sure they are there, and I look forward to working with them. But as the Secretary of Defense has tried to make it as clear as possible to the Members of Congress--and I wish the President would weigh in more heavily--we cannot continue functioning and preserve our national security this way.

That is why if we do another 2-week continuing resolution, I will be coming to the floor to propose an amendment to provide funding for our Nation's defense for the remainder of the year.

I take a backseat to no one in my zeal to cut unnecessary spending. I am aware we have mortgaged our children's futures. I know we cannot stop spending the way we are. But the first priority of government--the first priority--is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. That is why we must appropriately fund our Department of Defense and all its associated functions and especially provide the equipment and training and protection, as much as we can, to the men and women who are serving and sacrificing so the rest of us can live freely.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Coburn, in introducing legislation to repeal duplicative federal regulations relating to the inspection and grading of catfish. Specifically, our bill would rescind a provision in the 2008 Farm Bill, Section 11016 of P.L. 110-246, which aims to inhibit Vietnamese catfish imports as well as catfish imports of other potential trade partners.

Section 11016 is nothing more than the latest effort by Members of Congress serving the special interests of the catfish industry in their home States. A similar protectionist tactic was tried in the 2002 Farm Bill when many of these same members slipped in language that made it illegal to label Vietnamese catfish, ``pangasius,'' as catfish in U.S. retail markets. The intent there was to discourage American consumers from buying Vietnamese catfish products even though they are virtually indistinguishable from U.S. grown catfish. It didn't work. Vietnamese catfish remain popular with American consumers because it is more affordable and cheaper to produce than domestic catfish grown in aquaculture ponds. Now these special interests are relying on this latest Farm Bill rider to over regulate Vietnamese catfish by, ironically, deeming pangasius a catfish again. Under the guise of food safety, the 2008 Farm Bill directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, to inspect catfish like it does meat products or eggs, except that no other fish is under the regulatory thumb of the FSIS. Catfish is already regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, which hasn't reported any safety or health problems with the Vietnamese imports. Domestic producers are simply trying to create barriers for Vietnamese catfish farmers by forcing them to comply with a second inspection regime administered by an entirely different arm of the Federal bureaucracy.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, is currently engaged in the proposed rulemaking process for implementing this new inspection authority. A recent Government Accountability Office, GAO, report flagged this FSIS program as ``duplicative'' and ``high risk'' for ``fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.'' GAO estimates that the USDA would spend about $30 million in taxpayer dollars to implement the agency's new catfish inspection program and that we would be further fragmenting our federal food safety system by having catfish regulated twice by both USDA and FDA.

The provision that I am seeking to repeal is nothing more than a protectionist tactic funded at taxpayers' expense. If implemented, the proposed USDA regulations will lead to a duplicative, costly and complex overseas inspection program that serves no real purpose but to protect American catfish growers from competition while forcing American consumers to pay more for fish. Not only is the catfish provision in Section 11016 offensive to our principles of free trade, it flagrantly disregards our Bilateral Trade Agreement and relationship with Vietnam. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Coburn, in introducing legislation to repeal duplicative federal regulations relating to the inspection and grading of catfish. Specifically, our bill would rescind a provision in the 2008 Farm Bill, Section 11016 of P.L. 110-246, which aims to inhibit Vietnamese catfish imports as well as catfish imports of other potential trade partners.

Section 11016 is nothing more than the latest effort by Members of Congress serving the special interests of the catfish industry in their home States. A similar protectionist tactic was tried in the 2002 Farm Bill when many of these same members slipped in language that made it illegal to label Vietnamese catfish, ``pangasius,'' as catfish in U.S. retail markets. The intent there was to discourage American consumers from buying Vietnamese catfish products even though they are virtually indistinguishable from U.S. grown catfish. It didn't work. Vietnamese catfish remain popular with American consumers because it is more affordable and cheaper to produce than domestic catfish grown in aquaculture ponds. Now these special interests are relying on this latest Farm Bill rider to over regulate Vietnamese catfish by, ironically, deeming pangasius a catfish again. Under the guise of food safety, the 2008 Farm Bill directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, to inspect catfish like it does meat products or eggs, except that no other fish is under the regulatory thumb of the FSIS. Catfish is already regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, which hasn't reported any safety or health problems with the Vietnamese imports. Domestic producers are simply trying to create barriers for Vietnamese catfish farmers by forcing them to comply with a second inspection regime administered by an entirely different arm of the Federal bureaucracy.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, is currently engaged in the proposed rulemaking process for implementing this new inspection authority. A recent Government Accountability Office, GAO, report flagged this FSIS program as ``duplicative'' and ``high risk'' for ``fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.'' GAO estimates that the USDA would spend about $30 million in taxpayer dollars to implement the agency's new catfish inspection program and that we would be further fragmenting our federal food safety system by having catfish regulated twice by both USDA and FDA.

The provision that I am seeking to repeal is nothing more than a protectionist tactic funded at taxpayers' expense. If implemented, the proposed USDA regulations will lead to a duplicative, costly and complex overseas inspection program that serves no real purpose but to protect American catfish growers from competition while forcing American consumers to pay more for fish. Not only is the catfish provision in Section 11016 offensive to our principles of free trade, it flagrantly disregards our Bilateral Trade Agreement and relationship with Vietnam. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on March 18, 2011, the State of Arizona will celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the Theodore Roosevelt Dam. As that day approaches, I wish to recognize how vital this structure has been in unlocking the tremendous economic potential of my State.

In the arid and often unforgiving desert, the Theodore Roosevelt Dam is the central component and crowning achievement of one of the Nation's first water reclamation projects in the West. In 1903, a group of visionary territorial Arizonans banded together to mortgage their lands as debt collateral for a Federal loan to build the Roosevelt Dam. The dam was completed 8 years later, in 1911, and stood as the world's largest masonry dam of its day. Located on the Salt River, it serves as both a water storage system and hydroelectric facility that supplies electricity, drinking water and irrigation water to the downstream communities of metropolitan Phoenix.

Those original landowners, who in 1903 formed the Salt River Valley Water Users Association, had a vision of what could be. Indeed, Roosevelt Dam nurtured and ultimately transformed the Salt River Valley into what is today. The dam made Phoenix a boom town, and turned the surrounding area into one of fastest-growing regions in the Nation. People came, and with them a strong and vibrant economy grew to attract new businesses fueled by a diverse labor force. Roosevelt Dam literally changed people's ideas about living in the desert. It is a legacy that continues today with the Salt River Project, a power and water utility that continues to provide the infrastructure that feeds the area's economy.

Over the next several decades, the Phoenix area is projected to expand by twice the national rate once again demonstrating the vitality of the community. No other reclamation project in the history of Arizona has stimulated the economic and population boom in the way Roosevelt Dam did once it was completed. For that reason, I am proud to honor its contributions in my State, for the past 100 years and into its next century of service.

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

Mr. President, in a few minutes, I will ask the Senate to proceed to the consideration of S. 380. S. 380 extends the Andean Trade Preference Act. But first I would like to make a few comments about the importance of this trade preference act.

I am very aware that a lot is going on in the world and there is upheaval in the Middle East and there is a lot going on on both sides of the aisle on spending, and I am very aware of what has dominated the news and the attention of the Congress and the American people. I want to talk for a few minutes about the importance of the Andean Trade Preference Act and the need to reauthorize it.

I remind my colleagues that the Andean Trade Preference Act was first enacted by President George Herbert Walker Bush as a way to boost the licit economies of several Andean nations that were major producers of illegal drugs. Over the past two decades, this program has been supported by Democratic and Republican Presidents, it has been reauthorized by Democratic and Republican Congresses, and it has been widely recognized as a dramatic success--creating jobs for our workers, who can sell cheaper imports to American consumers as a result of these trade preferences, while also supporting the economic development of strategically important countries in our hemisphere.

One of these countries is Colombia. We have been rightly focused on other parts of the world over the past decade, but one of the untold success stories is Colombia's transformation from a failed state to a thriving democracy. It has been one of the world's great stories and one of the greatest bipartisan triumphs of U.S. foreign policy in recent memory.

Through the courage and perseverance of the Colombian people, the government and armed forces of Colombia took their country back from terrorists and drug traffickers and warlords who murdered the innocent indiscriminately and sowed our society with illegal drugs. We were with them every step of the way. It was President Bill Clinton, together with a Republican Congress, who first enacted Plan Colombia, and it was President George W. Bush, initially with a Democratic Congress, who expanded Plan Colombia.

Over the past decade, the U.S. taxpayer has invested more than $8 billion to help Colombia win its war, and it has been some of the best money we have ever spent on a national security program. Remember, the Plan Colombia and the war, where we helped the Colombians take back their country from FARC and the terrorists and drug dealers, were to prevent drugs from coming to the United States of America, where the demand was created.

So I am proud that as an act of generosity and help on the part of the American people, it was in America's national security interest to see Colombia not become a failed state, which it almost was 10 years ago.

The Andean Trade Preference Act has been a critical component of this effort. It has provided Colombia, along with other Andean nations, essential open access to our markets that has catalyzed their success. What is more, the vast majority of the products these countries are exporting to us Americans barely produce at all, such as cut flowers. So it provides a huge benefit for our partners, with little competition or displacement for our workers.

Unfortunately, after the long record of bipartisan support for this successful and vital program, the last Congress did something deeply shortsighted and terrible: Rather than extend the trade preferences, as previous Congresses have done, it made their passage and the passage of other vital free-trade measures conditional on the extension of a whole array of new government spending--spending our country cannot afford.

As a result, the Andean Trade Preference Act expired last weekend and with it the privileged market access that is so vital to key Andean partners, such as Colombia. What is even more terrible, we are failing Colombia at the worst of all possible times, as it is struggling to recover and rebuild from massive flooding. I saw with my own eyes the massive flooding, where hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced. They have been devastated, and the estimated cost to rebuild is several billion dollars.

But it is even worse than that. Not only has this Congress denied Colombians vital trade preferences at a time when their country is literally underwater, it has done so amid the continued failure to ratify the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. This agreement mainly benefits us, leveling the playing field for U.S. workers seeking access to Colombian markets.

But the signal of strategic commitment that it sends to Colombia can't be understated. By failing for 5 straight years now to pass a Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we are sending the opposite signal--that the United States is an unreliable and untrustworthy ally and that we seem to be incapable of rising above our own domestic political differences to consolidate our strategic partnership with one of our best friends in the world. It is sad.

No trade agreement during a time of great need due to a natural disaster, and how have the Congress and the administration responded? By failing to extend critical trade preferences for Colombia and our other Andean friends. We have kicked an ally while they are down and right when they need us most. Colombian officials tell me that without these trade preferences, their cut flower industry, which is one of the pillars of the Colombian economy, could contract by 15 to 20 percent in the coming weeks.

Now is the time to right this wrong. Now is the time to come together and extend the Trade Preference Act--by itself, on its own, and on its merits, just as Congresses before us have done. This legislation will do that. It will extend the privileged market access for our Andean friends until November 30 of next year. After we have invested so much in the success of the Andean region--investments that have earned us enormous goodwill and gratitude--why would we do anything to call our friendship into question? Why would we do anything that harms our allies? We cannot afford not to extend the Andean Trade Preference Act.

Let me also explain something to my colleagues. Before we went out of session last year, we made an agreement--and the Senator from Ohio, whom I see on the floor and who was one of the negotiators--that the trade adjustment assistance would be extended along with the Andean Trade Preference Act. The interesting thing about that extension is that it was not only an extension of the trade adjustment assistance as it was prior to the stimulus being passed, but also after. In other words, the trade adjustment assistance had gone up to some $2.6 billion, an additional $620 million for the remainder of this year. So it is in existence today, with $1 billion being spent on various programs. There is a GAO study that severely questions these multiple employment and training programs that are in existence today. They talk about the $18 billion being spent to administer 47 programs, an increase of 3 programs and roughly $5 billion since their last reporting.

What I am asking my colleagues who are supportive of the TAA is to agree to an extension of the Andean Trade Preference Agreement in return for our extension, our agreement to extend the trade adjustment assistance at the level of pre-stimulus. The stimulus was supposedly advertised as a one-shot deal. So why should we increase trade adjustment assistance in keeping with the enactment of the stimulus package? Now that the stimulus is supposedly over, can't we go back to previous levels of adjustment assistance?

I wish to make the record perfectly clear: This proposal of killing off trade adjustment assistance is in being as we speak today. We are saying we don't want the increase that was put in in 2009 as a result of the stimulus package.

Things are not great in our Western Hemisphere. We have a return of Danny Ortega in Nicaragua, we have Hugo Chavez continuing to consolidate power in Venezuela. We are seeing other nations in the region--and I won't enumerate them--that are becoming more and more dictatorial, totalitarian, and anti-American. So when we don't extend the ATPA, the signal to our friends and our adversaries in the region is very clear: You can't count on the United States of America to keep its solemn agreements negotiated and ratified by Republican and Democratic Presidents and Congresses.

I understand and appreciate and respect the Senator from Ohio, the Senator from Pennsylvania, and the Senator from Montana and their dedication to trade adjustment assistance. I am not seeking to end TAA. We are seeking to leave TAA at its previous level prior to the stimulus package being enacted. I don't understand why that shouldn't be sufficient in this era of huge deficits and debts.

I ask my friend from Ohio and those on the other side of the aisle who oppose a long-term extension--who oppose the Andean Trade Preference Act being extended--that we would agree to the extension of the trade adjustment assistance only at the level where it was before. Isn't that reasonable? Isn't that reasonable? It is $1 billion a year. It is $1 billion a year that is going to be allowed under the TAA.

Again, I understand there are a lot of things going on in the world. There are a lot of things going on domestically. There are a lot of things happening, but shouldn't we pay attention to our friends, our little friends who helped us so much in this war on drugs? If they had become, as they nearly did 10 years ago, a failed state, the consequences to the United States national security would have been profound. We are watching the violence in Mexico and we are alarmed by it, including the death of a DEA agent and the wounding of another one in the last couple of days in Mexico. My friends, that was a Sunday school picnic compared to what was going on in Colombia before we helped them with the Andean Trade Preference Agreement. I urge my colleagues to please consider at least a short-term extension of this ATPA, along with the basic TAA, at least to give these people an opportunity to recover from the devastation they have experienced.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 380. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, all I can say to my friend from Ohio is we have deep sympathy for the plight of the citizens of Ohio who have been very hard hit in this economic disaster that this Nation has undergone in the last couple of years. There has been enormous loss of jobs and income on the part of the citizens of Ohio, and particularly that part of the country. I would also argue that my home State of Arizona has suffered rather dramatically as well.

But does it make sense to dramatically increase any program at this particular time? We are already spending $1 billion a year. That seems to be a significant amount of money.

I would also point out that a lot of these training programs have drawn scrutiny and even criticism from the GAO. This criticism has been kind of telling. It says:

In fiscal year 2009, nine Federal agencies spent $18

billion to administer 47 programs, an increase of three

programs and roughly $5 billion since they reported in 2003.

So I don't think we could see tangible benefits from the trade adjustment assistance. But we are willing, I say to my friend from Ohio, to continue to support a $1 billion program per year for trade adjustment assistance when we are slashing vital programs that people know are far--we are all having to make sacrifices. Can't my friend from Ohio be satisfied with $1 billion for trade adjustment assistance?

Again, I wish to say, we do have problems in our hemisphere. We do have Brazilians striking out on a new and independent course. We have Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, we have these countries that are looking on us as either an adversary or an enemy, depending on which country we are talking about. So the message we are sending by not at least extending this agreement I think is a terrible one, and I ask my friend from Ohio to reconsider.

I also wish to say this: The President of the United States and the White House should be weighing in on this. The President of the United States has said he wants the Korea Free Trade Agreement and we want the ``Colombian and Panamanian Free Trade Agreement'' as well.

Well, if they want that, should they not want to extend the trade preferences that were negotiated by President Bush and extended under President Clinton? Should we not want that--and Republican and Democratic Congresses alike?

I have taken too much time of this body. Again, I ask my friend from Ohio to reconsider, negotiate, do whatever we can before we continue to send this terrible message to our friends in the hemisphere who have literally laid down their lives in the war against drugs, which we have felt is in vital U.S. national security interests.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I certainly didn't want to get too much into this debate because the fact is that GAO concluded:

Based on our survey of agency officials, we determined that

only 5 of the 47 programs have had impact studies that assess

whether the program is responsible for improving employment

outcomes. The five impact studies generally found that the

effects of participation were not consistent across programs,

with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to

be small, inconclusive or restricted to short-term impacts.

We are talking about an additional $1.6 billion. We can't do that. Why in the world the Senator from Ohio and other Senators from his part of the country were satisfied for years with a TAA of roughly $1 billion and now are not satisfied with that in these times of economic difficulties confounds me. It is a sad day for our friends in Colombia and the Andes who have sacrificed so much on our behalf. I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I speak on my amendment and ask the time not be counted or charged from either side.

Mr. President, a few days ago I offered an amendment that would eliminate the Essential Air Service Program, which is at least authorized in this bill at about $200 million. I had no idea we would approach the end of Western civilization as we know it if we eliminated this obviously outdated and unnecessary $200 million of the taxpayers' money.

I am reminded of a comment once made by President Ronald Reagan. To paraphrase what he said: The closest thing to eternal life here on Earth is a government program. There is nothing that illustrates that point more than the Essential Air Service Program.

I ask unanimous consent that three letters be printed in the Record. One is from FreedomWorks, one from the National Taxpayers Union, and another is from the Citizens Against Government Waste.

I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.

FreedomWorks says:

The ESA is a prime example of wasteful spending. A graph

produced by the FAA shows that 99.95 percent of all Americans

live within 120 miles of a major public airport. Taxpayers

should not be forced to subsidize rural airports with too

little demand to justify their existence. I urge you to

repeal the EAS to save taxpayers $1 billion over the next 5

years.

The National Taxpayers Union cites:

The cities of Macon and Athens, Georgia are both less than

a 90-minute drive from Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson

International Airport. Despite this, the U.S. Department of

Transportation subsidized 26 flights per week to and from

each city at a clip of $426 per passenger from Macon and $135

for Athens.

Then, of course, the Citizens Against Government Waste points out that:

Congress cannot continue on a spending rampage while

ignoring the nation's balance sheets.

Probably the loudest complaints have been from the State of Alaska, a State I love and enjoy. There is a great article that appeared in an Alaskan newspaper. It is called ``Self-Sustainability--Is it time for Alaska to grow up?''

Among other things I didn't know about is:

While the nation faces a $14 trillion fiscal hole and

Congress is looking to tighten its belt, it's inevitable that

Alaska is going to feel some of the pain.

But what is interesting is that the State of Alaska, he goes on to state, has ``$12 billion in reserves and another $40 billion banked away in the permanent fund.''

Wow. I don't know of another State in the Union that is that well off. He, Andrew Halcro, goes on to say:

We Alaskans fancy ourselves as rugged individualists, who

are quick to eschew the long arm of the federal government

and Big Brother. However our actions sometimes don't match

our rhetoric.

He goes on:

What about the amendment to eliminate essential air service

subsidies in small rural communities throughout Alaska?

Currently the feds subsidize air service to more than 44

communities to the tune of $12 million per year.

The author goes on to say:

Is it really the federal government's role to subsidize air

service to Rampart, a community with 15 people?

An interesting question. He goes on to say:

We've known this day was coming but have done little to

prepare our communities for it. We have continued to live in

a subsidized world, where one of the biggest issues so far

this legislative session has been a debate over suspending

Alaska's measly gas tax. . . .

This past week, Alaska Senator Mark Begich, in response to

the announced ban on earmarks stated, ``I have said many

times Alaska is a young State with many needs, and we deserve

our fair share of Federal funding to develop our resources

and our infrastructure.''

The author goes on to say:

While I would absolutely agree that federal policies have

restricted Alaska's ability to develop its vast resources,

the ``young state'' argument has been used for decades to

justify growing demands on the Federal budget for things like

the Denali Commission and earmarks for controversial bridges.

This year Alaska turns 52, so arguably we are not kids

anymore. Is it time for us to grow up?

Is it time for all of us to grow up and eliminate these Federal programs that cost billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, which originally may have--and I emphasize ``may have''--in 1978, when we deregulated the airlines, have had a legitimate reason? Obviously, it does not anymore.

I look forward to the fact that our conservative organizations are all judging these as a key vote. I also point out to my colleagues, if we are serious, if we are serious about cutting spending and going about making tough decisions, this is an easy decision. If we vote against my amendment, if the majority votes against my amendment to eliminate essential air service, the message to the American people as of November 2 is, we aren't serious. We aren't serious. If we can't eliminate a program like this, how can we make the tough decisions that are coming?

The yeas and nays have been ordered. I hope we will have a vote as soon as reasonably possible, and I look forward to the continued debate on this issue which seems to have created quite a large degree of controversy throughout the country.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 14, as Modified

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4.

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

Mr. President, I know we celebrated President Reagan's 100th birthday this past weekend. I quote from him on many occasions. He inspired many of us in many ways. President Reagan once stated:

Government programs once launched never disappear. Actually

a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we

will ever see on this earth.

I do not know if President Reagan ever observed the Essential Air Service program, but it certainly fits his description. This amendment, to repeal a $200 million government subsidy, may not be significant. And $200 million, in the light of a $1.5 trillion deficit this year, is probably not a lot of money. But a lot of Americans on November 2 said they wanted us to stop spending on things that are not absolutely essential. Although this program is called the Essential Air Service, in my view, it is far from ``essential.'' But the American people spoke on November 2. They said, stop the spending. Stop programs that are either unnecessary, have grown too much, are unwise, or even make some tough decisions.

In this bill, we are not cutting the Essential Air Service, we are actually increasing it to some $200 million. My colleagues may be a bit confused by this chart right here. But it shows--by this way, this chart came from the FAA--that 99.95 percent of all Americans--99.95 percent of all Americans--live within 120 miles of a public airport that has more than 10,000 takeoffs and landings annually.

So, yes, there are some parts of America that represent the .05 percent of all Americans who live outside of 120 miles from an airport that has 10,000 takeoffs and landings.

All the watchdog organizations--Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, all of those organizations that watch what we do support this amendment. Earlier this month Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz said: The nonessential air service has outlived its usefulness and is another reason why the country has a $14 trillion national debt.

A lot of Americans will be watching the vote on this amendment. It is not the first amendment to try to cut back on spending, but it certainly is, in my view, very symbolic of whether we are

serious. Last week, in the President's State of the Union speech, he said: The only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it, in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending and spending through tax breaks and loopholes.

As House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has told many, ``There are no sacred cows when it comes to spending cuts.'' To put it bluntly, the Essential Air Service is not ``essential.'' The program was created in 1978 when Congress deregulated the airline industry and allowed market forces to determine the price, quantity, and quality of service. Deregulation allowed most airline carriers to focus their resources on profitable, high-density markets. That is the way the market works. In response, Congress established the Essential Air Service to subsidize airline carriers that provide service to small communities at a loss, because, otherwise, no sane business would serve a market at a loss.

Again, as Ronald Reagan once eloquently stated, ``Government does not solve problems, it subsidizes them.'' That is exactly what we did in 1978 by creating the Essential Air Program.

As with so many programs we have created, as Congress initially enacted the program, it was supposed to last 10 years. It was only 10 years that we enacted this program while markets adjusted and communities adjusted. In 1996, of course, we removed the 10-year limit, and like so many programs the government has created, it started with a few airline carriers and a few communities, and now has grown to subsidize a dozen airline carriers and over 100 communities. You cover enough communities, you get enough votes, you keep the program going, and then you increase the spending on the program.

In this bill, it increased costs of $200 million. Again, not much in comparison to a $1.5 trillion debt, $14 trillion deficit--$1.5 trillion deficit, $14 trillion debt. But it might be nice to start somewhere. Like so many other government programs, the program was initially funded for several million dollars, now up to $200 million.

A July 2009 Government Accountability Office report questioned whether the AES program has outlived its usefulness, stating:

Current conditions raise concerns about whether the program

continues to operate as it has. The growth of the air

service, especially by low-cost carriers, which today serve

most U.S. hub airports, weighed against the relatively high

fares and inconvenience of Essential Air Service flights can

lead people to bypass Essential Air Service flights and drive

to hub airports.

As I mentioned, 99.95 percent of all Americans live within 120 miles of public airports with more than 10,000 takeoffs and landings--in other words, fairly large airports. Let me give you a good example of the kind of great expenditure of the taxpayers dollar this is.

Last year the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, ``John Murtha's Airport for No One,'' which reported on an airport in Pennsylvania that has received more than $1.3 million over the past few years under the Essential Air Service program. The article states:

The airport sees an average of fewer than 30 people per

day. There is never a wait for security, you can park for

free right outside the gate. And you are almost guaranteed a

row to yourself on any flight.

The article continues:

Tickets to fly to Johnstown are expensive, even though

every passenger flying out of John Murtha Airport has a $100

subsidy behind the ticket, courtesy of the Federal Essential

Air Service Program, which provides support to struggling

airports. So far it has gotten $150 million of payments to

what is called the Airport for No One. There are a total of

18 flights per week, all of which go to Dulles Airport in

Washington, D.C.

The author goes on to say:

I was visiting the airport from Washington but because

flights cost a pricy $400, I drove. The drive took less than

three and a half hours and cost about $35 in gas--not to

mention that it was arguably faster than flying. And this

isn't a remote area of the state. Murtha airport is less than

two hours from the Pittsburgh airport. The airport has an

$8.5 million taxpayer-funded radar system that has never been

used. The runway was paved with reinforced concrete at a cost

of more than $17 million. The latest investment was $800,000

from the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

to repave half of the secondary runway. (Never mind that the

first one is hardly ever in use.)

Well, the list goes on and on. That is just an example.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article from the Wall Street Journal entitled ``John Murtha's Airport for No One,'' and the Los Angeles Times article entitled, ``Planes to nowhere? Congress plans to increase small-town airline subsidies,'' and the Seattle Times article entitled, ``Rural air subsidies test resolve to cut spending.''

The Los Angeles Times article entitled ``planes to nowhere,'' stated:

In 2008, according to Senate Appropriations Committee data,

Great Lakes Airlines received a subsidy of about $1.8 million

for the 414 passengers it flew to and from Ely Nevada, which

is about a 4-hour drive to Las Vegas. This amounts to a

$4,500 per-person subsidy. Since the program requires

companies to offer at least two round trips most days, some

subsidized flights were almost certainly empty.

The article says: Ely is a beneficiary of the Essential Air Service program established in the 1970s after airline deregulation, et cetera. Costs vary widely in part because of differences in ridership. Glendive, MT saw a per-passenger subsidy of more than $2,000 for each of the 418 who flew last year. The 23,581 passengers using the airport in Manhattan, KS, only cost the government $50.82 each.

Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said: The program ``was supposed to go away over a period of time as we made the transition [from deregulation]. . . . Congress made sure it hasn't.''

Then, of course, I mentioned the Seattle Times article entitled, ``Rural air subsidies test resolve to cut spending.''

A program that subsidizes air service to small airports,

often in remote communities, is shaping up as an early test

in the new Congress of conservative zeal for shrinking the

federal government.

It goes on to say:

A program that subsidizes air services to small airports,

often in remote communities, is shaping up as an early test

in the new Congress of conservative zeal for shrinking the

Federal Government.

Subsidies per airline passenger as of June 1, 2010, ranged

as high as $5,223 in Ely, NV, to as low as $9.21 in Thief

River Falls, MN, according to Transportation Department data

for the lower 48 States.

But critics say the airports often serve too few people to

merit the amount of money spent in subsidies. Urban growth

over the past three decades has also placed transportation

alternatives--other airports, trains and bus service--within

a reasonable distance of some communities receiving

subsidies.

Studies show that in a lot of those communities people

drive to larger airports to get better service at a lower

cost than they can get at the smaller airport, even with

subsidized air service, said Severin Borenstein, a

University of California-Berkeley business professor who

is an expert on airline competition.

``Some communities can make a credible claim they need the

service, particularly in Alaska, but I think these are a

relatively small part of the program,'' he said.

The program has been remarkably resilient, partly due to

the protection it receives from lawmakers from rural states

and districts. It has been proposed for cuts or elimination

many times over the years, but continues to grow.

``It's exactly in the political sweet spot,'' Borenstein

said. Lawmakers don't feel it's worth upsetting the few

people the program serves to achieve what amounts to a modest

savings in federal budget terms, he said.

I received a letter from four Senators that stated:

Eliminating the program will have a devastating impact on

the economies of rural communities.

I believe the real devastation to rural communities--big communities, small communities, and medium-size communities--is if we don't stop mortgaging our children and grandchildren's futures, if we don't stop doing things that are unnecessary. This program was put into being in 1978. It was supposed to be there for 10 years. It was a few million dollars. Now, according to this bill, it will be $200 million.

It is about time we match our rhetoric with our votes. I believe this will be a very interesting vote we will be taking on this amendment.

All of these red dots represent people served by large and major airports. There are some areas of the country that are not. Most of these are very sparsely populated areas.

I hope my colleagues will vote in favor of eliminating this program that was designed for 10 years of life and now has continued on for some 30 years. And, as Ronald Reagan said, they are the hardest thing in the world to either reduce or eliminate.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

I yield the floor.