Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are poised to pass what some have termed a ``sweeping overhaul'' of our Nation's financial regulatory system. Unfortunately, this legislation does little, if anything--to tackle the tough problems facing the financial sector, nor does it institute real, meaningful and comprehensive reform. This bill is simply an abysmal failure and serves as yet another example of Congress's inability to make the choices necessary to bring our country back into economic prosperity.

What this bill does represent is a guarantee of future bailouts. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed titled ``The Dodd-Frank Financial Fiasco,'' John Taylor--a professor of economics at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution--wrote:

The sheer complexity of the 2,319-page Dodd-Frank financial

reform bill is certainly

a threat to future economic growth. But if you sift through

the many sections and subsections, you find much more than

complexity to worry about.

The main problem with the bill is that it is based on a

misdiagnosis of the causes of the financial crisis, which is

not surprising since the bill was rolled out before the

congressionally mandated Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

finished its diagnosis.

The biggest misdiagnosis is the presumption that the

government did not have enough power to avoid the crisis. But

the Federal Reserve had the power to avoid the monetary

excesses that accelerated the housing boom that went bust in

2007. The New York Fed had the power to stop Citigroup's

questionable lending and trading decisions and, with hundreds

of regulators on the premises of such large banks, should

have had the information to do so. The Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC) could have insisted on reasonable

liquidity rules to prevent investment banks from relying so

much on short-term borrowing through repurchase agreements to

fund long-term investments. And the Treasury working with the

Fed had the power to intervene with troubled financial firms,

and in fact used this power in a highly discretionary way to

create an on-again off-again bailout policy that spooked the

markets and led to the panic in the fall of 2008.

But instead of trying to make implementation of existing

government regulations more effective, the bill vastly

increases the power of government in ways that are unrelated

to the recent crisis and may even encourage future crises.

Mr. Taylor then goes on to highlight the many ``false remedies'' contained in this legislation including the ``orderly liquidation'' authority given to the FDIC--which effectively institutionalizes the bailout process. Other examples are the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the new Office of Financial Research, and a new regulation for nonfinancial firms that use financial instruments to reduce risks of interest-rate or exchange-rate volatility.

In addition to the ``false remedies,'' the huge expansion of government, and the outright power-grab by the Federal Government contained in this so-called reform measure--recent press reports note that this bill has also become the vehicle for imposing racial and gender quotas on the financial industry. Section 342 of this bill establishes Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion in at least 20 Federal financial services agencies. These offices will be tasked with implementing ``standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts.''

This ``fair inclusion'' policy will apply to ``financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services.''

The provision goes on to assert that the government will terminate contracts with institutions they deem have ``failed to make a good faith effort to include minorities and women in their workforce.''

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, spotlighted the controversial section in an article on Real Clear Markets on July 8th. She wrote:

This is a radical shift in employment legislation. The law

effectively changes the standard by which institutions are

evaluated from anti-discrimination regulations to quotas. In

order to be in compliance with the law these businesses will

have to show that they have a certain percentage of women and

a certain percentage of minorities.

This provision was never considered or debated in the Senate. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that such a major change in government policy--indeed a complete shift from anti-discrimination regulations to a system of quotas for the financial industry--be fully aired and debated by both Chambers before it is enacted.

Finally, let me return to Mr. Taylor's piece from the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Taylor added:

By far the most significant error of omission in the bill

is the failure to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the

government sponsored enterprises that encouraged the

origination of risky mortgages in the first place by

purchasing them with the support of many in Congress. Some

excuse this omission by saying that it can be handled later.

But the purpose of ``comprehensive reform'' is to balance

competing political interests and reach compromise; that will

be much harder to do if the Frank-Dodd bill becomes law.

I could not agree more. It is clear to any rational observer that the housing market has been the catalyst of our current economic turmoil. And it is impossible to ignore the significant role played by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The events of the past 2 years have made it clear that never again can we allow the taxpayer to be responsible for poorly managed financial entities who gambled away billions of dollars. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are synonymous with mismanagement and waste and have become the face of ``too big to fail.''

During the debate on this financial ``reform'' bill, we heard much about how the U.S. Government will never again allow a financial institution to become ``too big to fail.'' We heard countless calls for more regulation to ensure that taxpayers are never again placed at such tremendous risk. Sadly, the conference report before us now completely ignores the elephant in the room--because no other entity's failure would be as disastrous to our economy as Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's.

As my colleagues know, during Senate consideration of this bill, I offered a good, common-sense amendment designed to end the taxpayer- backed conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by putting in place an orderly transition period and eventually requiring them to operate--without government subsidies--on a level playing field with their private sector competitors. Unfortunately that amendment was defeated by a near-party-line vote.

The majority, however, did offer an alternative proposal to my amendment. Was it a good, well thought out, comprehensive plan to end the taxpayer-backed free ride of Fannie and Freddie and require them to operate on a level playing field with their private sector competitors? Nope. It was a study. The majority included language in this bill to study the problem of Fannie and Freddie for 6 months. Wow! Instead of dealing head-on with the two enterprises that brought our entire economy to its knees--the majority wants to study them for 6 more months.

According to a recent article published by the Associated Press, these two entities have already cost taxpayers over $145 billion in bailouts and--according to CBO--those losses could balloon to $400 billion. And if housing prices fall further, some experts caution, the cost to the taxpayer could hit as much as $1 trillion. And all the majority is willing to do is study them for 6 months. It is no wonder the American people view us with such contempt.

The Federal Government has set a dangerous precedent here. We sent the wrong message to the financial industry: when you engage in bad, risky business practices, and you get into trouble, the government will be there to save your hide. It amounts to nothing more than a taxpayer- funded subsidy for risky behavior and this bill does nothing to prevent it from happening all over again.

Again, I regret that I have to vote against this bill. I assure my colleagues, and the American people, that if this were truly a bill that instituted real, serious and effective reforms--I would be the first in line to cast a vote in its favor. But it is not. It serves as evidence of a dereliction of our duty and a missed opportunity to provide the American people with the protections necessary to avert yet another financial disaster. They deserve better from us.

Could I say to my friend, I think this issue is an alarming and disturbing one--perhaps one of the most disturbing, for two reasons: One is that this nomination had not even gone through the earliest stages of scrutiny by the relevant committee, not to mention the entire Senate; and the other, of course, is the individual himself who was being nominated, who could only be viewed as extreme, especially concerning many of his comments. One of his greatest rhetorical hits is: ``any health-care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must--must--redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate.'' That in itself is a remarkable statement.

But I wish to, for a second, with my friend, Dr. Barrasso, go back to this process. The fact is, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle blocked for over 2 years the nomination for this position by President Bush, and this nomination was barely 3 months old. He had not even filled out the questionnaire, much less attend a hearing. So the rationale used by the administration was: Well, the Republicans are going to block it. Well, we may have. And given the comments and record of Sir Donald--he is a knight, I understand, knighted by Queen Elizabeth--well, the comments by Sir Donald certainly do give one extreme pause. But shouldn't we at least go through the process of the hearing?

I have been around here a long time, and I have not paid attention to every nominee and the process they have been through, but I cannot remember a time where blocking the nomination took place--or announcement of preventing the nomination from moving forward was done before a hearing took place, or even the questionnaire.

In fact, I was very interested to see the comment of the chairman of the Finance Committee, under whose supervision in his committee this nomination would go through. I quote Senator Baucus:

I'm troubled that, rather than going through the standard

nomination process, Dr. Berwick was recess appointed. Senate

confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential

process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check

on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans

by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee--

and answered.

So not a single question was asked of the nominee, much less answered. And, of course, I understand. Having been a committee chairman myself, I will take great umbrage of my party, the President, or the other party that the process was completely bypassed. Because the Senate has the responsibility of advice and consent. And over time, I must admit that both Republican and Democrat administrations have abused the recess appointment process. Yes, they have abused it. But I must say, this takes it to a new high or low depending on which way you view it.

We have now seen in this administration the appointment of various ``czars,'' people given responsibilities over vast areas of government as ``czars.'' They have got more czars than the Romanoffs. So this is another step, in my view, of incursion and encroachment by the executive branch on the legislative branch, a coequal branch of government. So that in itself is extremely disturbing.

Are we going to have nominations made--an announcement of those nominations, and then automatically are we going to have ``recess'' appointments made? What was the hurry? There is going to be another recess in August. There is going to be another recess in October, unless we go out for elections. But yet in their zeal and haste, they had to do it over the Fourth of July recess.

I tell you, my friends, this is more than just one individual. This is a gradual and steady erosion of the responsibilities of the Senate of the United States called advice and consent, which can set dangerous precedence for the future. I say to this administration, and my friends on the other side of the aisle--and I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the Finance Committee--if we allow this to go on, it will hurt the Senate as an institution, not just Republicans, not just Democrats, but it will hurt this institution, if we allow, unresponded to, a situation where a nominee--his name comes over, and not even a hearing, not even a question is asked--and immediately that nominee is recess appointed, which means they are in a position of enormous power and authority for a long period of time. And this appointment--this appointment--has enormous consequences in light of the passage of the most sweeping overhaul of

the health care system in America, having just taken place over our obviously strenuous objections.

But it happened. Now the individual in charge, the individual who will bear great responsibilities, has not answered a single question posed by Members of this body on either side.

I say to my colleagues, this is a dangerous precedent and one that should not go unresponded to by either Democrat or Republican because of our responsibilities as a coequal branch of government. I see my colleague, the Republican leader.

Could I mention to my friend that even one of our not so strong allies from the Washington Post, Ruth Marcus, wrote a column saying:

There are legitimate explanations for Berwick's more

incendiary comments on health care. It's too bad he didn't

get to offer them. A cynic--who, me?--might think that the

administration simply preferred not to suffer the political

downside of a public airing.

A cynic might wonder, with Arkansas Democrat Blanche

Lincoln facing a tough re-election fight, whether Berwick

could even get through committee on a party-line vote. A

cynic might think that the last thing Senate Majority Leader

Harry Reid wanted before the election was a floor fight about

rationing health care.

A cynic might look at the White House explanation--that it

was urgent for CMS, without a confirmed administrator since

2006, to have a leader--and ask: Then why did you dither for

15 months before nominating someone?

In announcing the appointment, the president complained

that ``many in Congress have decided to delay critical

nominations for political purposes.'' True, but where's the

evidence of delay in Berwick's case? You can't fairly accuse

the other side of political gamesmanship when you short-

circuit the process and storm off the court before the first

set.

``To some degree, he's damaged goods,'' then-Sen. Barack

Obama said in 2005 about John Bolton's recess appointment as

United Nations ambassador.

Would the president say the same about Berwick?

An excellent column.

Mr. McCONNELL And that was Ruth Marcus.

I think it puts it pretty well. But none of us, of course, being cynics, would accept such an explanation by a columnist from the Washington Post.

I see my colleague from South Dakota.

Could I ask the Republican leader a question. He has been around here a fair amount of time, as I have. I ask the Republican leader, has he ever heard of or recalled of a nominee who was recess appointed without even the questionnaire from the relevant committee of oversight being responded to or a hearing before that committee? For the life of me, I cannot recall that.

So a nominee whose clear philosophy of record indicates redistribution of wealth, as he describes it, and a use of health care in a way that includes greater and greater ``leveling of the small distribution of income in America''--does that give us some indication of the real intentions of the administration when they proposed health care reform in this package, despite the statements made by the President that if you like the health insurance policy you have, you can keep it; there will be no tax increases for people below $250,000, et cetera? Does this appointment of an individual with a clear-cut philosophy that this is a way to redistribute wealth in America indicate that maybe the real--again, not being a cynic, but would give us some idea of a real intent of this ``health care reform'' we resisted so strenuously for more than a year?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wall Street Journal editorial of July 12, 2010, entitled ``Who Pays for ObamaCare? What Donald Berwick and Joe the Plumber both understand.''

I have some relationship to Joe the Plumber, not to Donald Berwick.

Madam President, I will quote the important part of the Wall Street Journal editorial, speaking of Dr. Berwick, Sir Donald:

With his vast new powers over what government spends, Dr.

Berwick will be well situated to equalize outcomes even more,

and he certainly seems inclined to do so. The most charitable

reading of his redistribution remarks, delivered in a 2008

London speech, is that any health insurance system will

involve some degree of redistribution to the ``less

fortunate,'' that is, to the sick from the healthy.

Yet Dr. Berwick made those comments in the context of a

larger, and bitter, indictment of the U.S. health system,

even though the huge public programs he will run already

account for about half of all national health spending. From

his point of view this isn't enough. His main stance was that

individual clinical choices must be subordinated to

government central planning to serve his view of social

justice and health care guaranteed by the state.

The great irony is that this sort of enforced

egalitarianism imposes higher taxes and other policies that

reduce the total stock of wealth and leave less for Dr.

Berwick to redistribute. Economic growth has been by far the

most important factor for improving health and longevity,

especially for those whom Dr. Berwick calls ``the poorer and

less fortunate.''

Americans have learned the hard way over the past two years

that this administration believes in wealth redistribution

first, economic growth second. Or as Dr. Berwick also put it

in his wealth-redistribution speech, it is crucial not to

have to rely on ``the darkness of private enterprise.''

That is an individual who is now going to oversee over half the health care provided in America who believes that ``the darkness of private enterprise'' should not be relied on.

So I wish to say to my friends again, there are two issues here of great concern: the individual himself, his record, and what he clearly intends for the finest health care system in America--not on restraining costs but obviously a redistribution of wealth; second, this entire process of an individual not even filling out a questionnaire--a nominee--or any semblance of a hearing before the relevant committee before a ``recess'' appointment is made. This is an erosion of the constitutional responsibilities of advice and consent of the Senate.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Jon Kyl, in introducing a bill that would convey 315 acres of Federal land in Arizona to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for use as a public shooting range. A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Trent Franks last year.

The construction of the Mohave Valley Shooting Range near Bullhead City, AZ, is widely supported in the tri-state region and has several anticipated benefits. For example, local law enforcement agencies support the shooting range as a way to help maintain firearms qualifications. Mohave Community College has a Law Enforcement Academy that would be significantly enhanced by this project. Also, the new range will reduce instances of random shooting on sensitive public lands which followed the closure of a former Bullhead City shooting facility in 1999.

In February 2010, after an arduous 12-year planning process, the BLM approved an administrative conveyance of federal land for the shooting range under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. This decision was made under an Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact. Unfortunately, several tribal governments have appealed the decision to the Interior Board of Land Appeals citing cultural impacts to the Boundary Cone Butte, which will undeservedly delay the project for several more years. It is important to note that the project's Environmental Assessment offers several mitigation measures that address tribal concerns, including the installation of sound dampening features, requirements for noise monitoring to ensure compliance with State noise standards for shooting range facilities, limiting the facility's footprint to protect culturally sensitive lands, and providing for the relocation of species that would be disturbed.

The bill we have introduced would direct the BLM to complete the land conveyance without further delay. It also acknowledges the 2010 Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment which was developed as part of the project's 12-year planning effort. Mr. President, the Mohave Valley Shooting Range project has lapsed for over a decade and the people of Mohave County are still waiting to break ground. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Jon Kyl, in introducing a bill that would convey 315 acres of Federal land in Arizona to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission for use as a public shooting range. A similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Trent Franks last year.

The construction of the Mohave Valley Shooting Range near Bullhead City, AZ, is widely supported in the tri-state region and has several anticipated benefits. For example, local law enforcement agencies support the shooting range as a way to help maintain firearms qualifications. Mohave Community College has a Law Enforcement Academy that would be significantly enhanced by this project. Also, the new range will reduce instances of random shooting on sensitive public lands which followed the closure of a former Bullhead City shooting facility in 1999.

In February 2010, after an arduous 12-year planning process, the BLM approved an administrative conveyance of federal land for the shooting range under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. This decision was made under an Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact. Unfortunately, several tribal governments have appealed the decision to the Interior Board of Land Appeals citing cultural impacts to the Boundary Cone Butte, which will undeservedly delay the project for several more years. It is important to note that the project's Environmental Assessment offers several mitigation measures that address tribal concerns, including the installation of sound dampening features, requirements for noise monitoring to ensure compliance with State noise standards for shooting range facilities, limiting the facility's footprint to protect culturally sensitive lands, and providing for the relocation of species that would be disturbed.

The bill we have introduced would direct the BLM to complete the land conveyance without further delay. It also acknowledges the 2010 Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment which was developed as part of the project's 12-year planning effort. Mr. President, the Mohave Valley Shooting Range project has lapsed for over a decade and the people of Mohave County are still waiting to break ground. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of the nomination of GEN David Petraeus to be Commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, and Commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan. General Petraeus is quite simply one of the finest military leaders our country has ever produced. And we are all grateful for his willingness to answer the call of service in yet another critical mission--a mission that will once again take him far away from his family, especially his beloved wife Holly, whose support and sacrifice over many decades, both for General Petraeus and for our men and women in uniform, can never be overstated. General Petraeus is an American hero, and I urge my colleagues to confirm his nomination.

Before I go further, let me say a word of praise for another American hero: GEN Stanley McChrystal. He is a man of unrivaled integrity, and what is most impressive about his long record of military excellence is how much of it remains cloaked in silence. Few understand fully how General McChrystal systematically dismantled al-Qaida in Iraq, or how he began to turn around our failing war in Afghanistan. These achievements, and others like them, are the true measure of Stanley McChrystal, and they will earn him an honored place in our history.

We are calling on General Petraeus at a critical moment for the war in Afghanistan. I agree with the President that success in Afghanistan is ``a vital national interest,'' and I support his decision to adopt a counterinsurgency strategy, backed by more troops and civilian resources. This is the only viable path to true success--which I would define as an Afghanistan that is increasingly capable of governing itself, securing its people, sustaining its own development, and never again serving as a base for attacks against America and our allies. In short, the same results we are slowly seeing emerge today in Iraq, thanks in large part to the work of General Petraeus and the forces he commanded.

Before heading out to Iraq 3 years ago, General Petraeus told the Armed Services Committee that the mission was ``hard but not hopeless.'' I would characterize our mission in Afghanistan the same way. Afghanistan is not a lost cause. Afghans do not want the Taliban back. They are good fighters, and they want a government that works for them, and works well. And for those who think the Karzai government is not an adequate partner, I would remind them that, in 2007, the Maliki government in Iraq was not only corrupt; it was collapsed and complicit in sectarian violence. A weak and compromised local partner is to be expected in counterinsurgency. That is why there is an insurgency. The challenge is to support and push our partners to perform better. That is what we are doing in Iraq, and that is what we can do in Afghanistan. But we need to make it clear that, as long as success in Afghanistan is possible, we will stay there to achieve it.

I appreciate the President's statement last week that July 2011 is simply a date to ``begin a transition phase'' to greater Afghan responsibility. And for those who doubt the President's desire and commitment to succeed in Afghanistan, his nomination of General Petraeus to run this war should cause them to think twice. I know that General Petraeus will do everything in his power to help us succeed in Afghanistan. I know that if he believes he needs something he does not have, or if he thinks that changes should be made to our war effort, he will not hesitate to offer his best professional military advice to the President and to Congress. I am encouraged that this is the man the President has given his confidence. And I believe this should be an opportunity for the Senate to join together, on a broad bipartisan basis, not just to support the nomination of General Petraeus, but to demonstrate to the Americans we represent, as well as to our friends and allies abroad, that we are fully committed to the success of our mission in Afghanistan.

We must give General Petraeus every opportunity to succeed in his new command. And I believe that means stating clearly that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan must be determined solely by conditions on the ground. What we are trying to do in Afghanistan, as in any counterinsurgency, is win the loyalty of the population--to convince people who may dislike the insurgency, but who may also distrust their government, that they should line up with us against the Taliban and al-Qaida. We are asking them to take a huge risk, and they will be far less willing to take that risk if they think we will begin leaving in a year. In a news report yesterday, one U.S. marine described the effect of the

July 2011 date on the Afghans she encounters: ``That's why they won't work with us,'' she said. ``They say you'll leave in 2011, and the Taliban will chop their heads off.''

In addition to being harmful, the July 2011 withdrawal date increasingly looks unrealistic. That date was based on assumptions made back in December about how much progress we could achieve in Afghanistan, and how quickly we could achieve it. But war never works out the way we assume. Secretary Gates said last week, ``I believe we are making some progress. [But] it is slower and harder than we anticipated.'' I agree. Marjah is largely cleared of the Taliban, but the holding and building is not going as well as planned. Our operation in Kandahar is getting off to a slower and more difficult start than expected. The performance of the Afghan government over the past 7 months is not as even or as rapid as we had hoped. Some of our key allies plan to withdraw their forces soon, and it looks increasingly unlikely that NATO will meet its pledge of 10,000 troops.

None of this is to say that we are failing, or that we will fail, in Afghanistan. It just means that we need to give our strategy the necessary time to succeed. This is all the more essential now with General Petraeus assuming command, pending his confirmation. He has proved that he can lead our forces to success. He has proved that he can work effectively with local partners in counterinsurgency. He has proved that he is an ideal partner for our many allies and friends, who are so critical to success in Afghanistan. In short, David Petraeus has proved that he is a winner, and we need to give him every opportunity and remove every obstacle so that he can help the United States and our allies to win in Afghanistan.

General Petraeus has my full support, and I urge my colleagues to vote to confirm his nomination so he can take up his new mission as soon as possible.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD Mr. President, it is my general policy to defer to Presidents on executive branch nominations. General Petraeus is clearly qualified for this position and, accordingly, I will vote in favor of his confirmation. But regardless of who is in command, the President's current strategy in Afghanistan is counterproductive. We should set a flexible timetable for responsibly drawing down U.S. troops, not just a start date, so that we can pursue a sustainable, global campaign against al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Mr. President, this is not the time for debate over strategy. I would point out that no one follows an uncertain trumpet, and for us to assume the Afghan people will now rally to the side of democracy and freedom, when they think we are leaving and unable to sustain a counterinsurgency on their own, is the same kind of thinking that opposed the surge in Iraq, the

same kind of thinking that would have doomed us to failure, the same kind of rhetoric that was voiced during our debate on Iraq 3 years ago. They were wrong then; they are wrong now.

I would hope they would have learned the lesson of our success in Iraq: that we must show our friends and allies alike that we will be there to complete the mission; not as a young soldier said the other day: that they fear the Americans are leaving and the Taliban will cut their heads off.

It is a fundamental of warfare that you have to see the mission through to completion or failure. To announce a date of withdrawal is to announce a date for defeat.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I object.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize the extraordinary contributions of Captain John B. Nowell, Jr., U.S. Navy, to our Nation. Captain Nowell has served with exceptional distinction as the director, Navy Senate Liaison, a position of great responsibility, from August 2008 to June 2010.

Captain Nowell's service to our country began with his induction into the U.S. Naval Academy in the summer of 1980. Upon his graduation and commissioning in 1984, he started out on what would become a distinguished career as a talented and respected surface warfare officer--a career that continues today. His naval service has literally taken him around the world, as he has served on ships from the east coast to the west coast, from Africa to Japan, and all of the oceans and seas in between.

Recognizing the enormous talent and potential in him, the Navy rewarded Captain Nowell with command at sea, entrusting him with the leadership of the guided-missile destroyer USS Porter and her crew from April 2002 to December 2003. During this time, Captain Nowell was called upon to lead his crew into combat, surge-deploying for Operation Iraqi Freedom into the Fifth and Sixth Fleet Areas of Responsibility where the Porter conducted Tomahawk strikes and Theater Ballistic Missile Defense. The crew of the USS Porter earned numerous accolades during Captain Nowell's command, including the coveted Battle ``E'' Award.

Captain Nowell's success as a wartime commander at sea ultimately led to command an entire Destroyer Squadron and to assume the role of the maritime force commander for Joint Task Force Lebanon. However, the most telling vote of confidence in his ability to lead would surely be his selection to command the inaugural Africa Partnership Station deployment, a multinational force of ships, submarines, aircraft, expeditionary partnership teams, and land-based forces charged with building partnership capacity throughout the African continent.

Today, we say goodbye to Captain Nowell after nearly 2 years of extraordinary service as the Navy's lead liaison to the U.S. Senate. During this time he led 15 congressional and staff delegations to 30 countries, often being requested by name to facilitate visits to combat zones and fleet locations for the most senior-ranking delegations. As he departs for his next challenging assignment as the head of surface warfare assignments at Naval Personnel Command, I honor him for his service to our country, his inspirational leadership, and his irrepressible drive. I call upon my colleagues to join me in wishing ``fair winds and following seas'' to Captain Nowell, his wife Jo, and his children Katherine, Stephen, and John III, who will be following his father's legacy as a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Maryland on her good remarks and her continued advocacy for human rights throughout the world.

I rise to speak on behalf of the legislation before us--the Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act. It has been a long time in the works, and a lot of Members and staff have put a tremendous amount of work into it, and I appreciate that commitment. This is an important piece of legislation. It comes at a critically important time.

Despite a year and a half of engagement, the Iranian Government continues to respond to the President's outstretched hand with an unclenched fist. The regime continues to support terrorism and violent Islamic extremist groups that are destabilizing governments and societies in the region. It continues to race toward a nuclear weapons capability, in full violation of its international agreements and contrary to the repeated demands of the community of civilized nations. Beyond all of this, the Iranian regime, now more than ever, continues to brutalize and oppress its own people, denying them their most basic human rights.

This bill represents the most powerful sanctions ever imposed by the Congress on the Government of Iran. It will target industries-- especially Iran's energy sector--that help to sustain the Iranian regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons. The bill will create significant new incentives for multinational companies to divest from the Iranian economy. Because of this legislation, we will be posing a choice to companies around the world: Do you want to do business with Iran or do you want to do business with the United States? We don't think that is much of a choice, but we will force companies to make it. They can't have it both ways.

I didn't wish to confine our sanctions efforts only to those persons in Iran who threaten our security and that of our allies. I also wanted to bring the full force of America's economic power to bear against those in Iran who threaten that country's peaceful human rights and democracy advocates. That is why, earlier this year, my good friend Senator Joe Lieberman and I joined with a broad bipartisan group of Senators to cosponsor legislation to create a new regime of targeted sanctions against human rights abusers in Iran. The provisions of our legislation have been included in this comprehensive sanctions legislation, and I would like to thank the conferees and the leaders of both parties for agreeing to include it.

Our part of this comprehensive sanctions bill has two parts:

First, it will require the President to compile a public list of individuals in Iran who--starting with the fraudulent Presidential election last June--are responsible for or complicit in human rights violations against Iranian citizens and their families no matter where in the world those abuses occur. It doesn't matter whether these individuals are officials in the Iranian Government or serving as their agents in paramilitary groups and other bands of thugs; we will find and uncover them all. I want to stress that this will be a public list, posted for all the world to see on the Web sites of the State Department and Treasury Department. We will shine a light on Iran's human rights abusers. We will publish their names and their faces, and we will make them famous for their crimes.

Second, this bill will then ban these Iranian human rights abusers from receiving visas and impose on them the full battery of sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act--that means freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under U.S. jurisdiction and ending all of their financial transactions with U.S. banks and other entities. These provisions mark the first time the U.S. Government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in Iran because of their human rights violations. In short, under this legislation, Iranian human rights abusers will be completely cut off from the global reach of the U.S. financial system, and that will send a powerful signal to every country, company, and bank in the world that they should think twice about doing business with the oppressors of the Iranian people.

It also sends an unequivocal and powerful message to the people in Iran who are demonstrating and working peacefully for their human rights that we share their interests and their struggles. We are not simply focused on the regime's nuclear program, although that remains a key concern, nor are we solely focused on the regime's support for terrorism, although that too remains a high priority. We are also making the human rights of Iran's people an equal priority of our government.

Now more than ever, it is urgent and essential that we support the peaceful aspirations of the Iranian people. One year ago, the conventional wisdom in the West held that the prospect for political evolution in Iran was dim and distant. But, as it often is, that conventional wisdom was utterly wrong. After the Iranian people were denied their right to a free and fair election, the world watched in awe as a sea of protestors--by some estimates, as many as 3 million Iranians--swelled in the streets all around the country. Ordinary Iranians realized they could not remain neutral in the struggle for human rights in their country, and they became part of it. As a result, history was made before our very eyes. One year ago, democratic change in Iran looked rather improbable. Just 1 week later, it looked virtually inevitable.

Unfortunately, the ensuing crackdown has been and continues to be as swift as it is brutal. Peaceful protestors have been attacked in the streets by masked agents of the Iranian regime, then dragged away to the

darkest corners of cruelty. Many have been raped and worse. Many of Iran's best and brightest have been forced to flee in fear from the land they love and to seek asylum in places such as Iraq and Turkey, where they remain today as refugees. We have all read the desperate pleas of terrorized Iranians as they shout for help through whatever cracks they continue to try to make in Iran's government-censored Internet. And, of course, on June 20 of last year, the entire world watched as a young woman named Neda bled to death in the streets of Tehran. On that day, I believe we witnessed the beginning of the end of this offensive government in Iran.

The past year's events have demonstrated the true character of Iran's people: proud, talented, the stewards of a great culture, eager to engage with the world, and relentless in their quest for justice--and a nation that should be a natural ally of the United States.

The past year's events have also highlighted the true character of the Iranian regime: a violent and militarized tyranny, self-serving and unconcerned with the welfare of Iran's people, with no shred of legitimacy left to justify its rule.

Anymore, we cannot separate the behavior of Iran's government from its character. After all, is it any wonder that a regime that has no regard whatsoever for the rights, the dignity, the very lives of its own people would also show the same blatant disregard for its own international agreements, for the sovereignty and security of its neighbors, and for the responsibilities of all civilized nations? And is it any wonder that this Iranian regime has been and will always be uncompromising in its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability--not just because it would be a source of power in the world but perhaps more importantly because it would be a source of safety and survival for its corrupt, unjust system at home.

My friends, I believe that when we consider the many threats and crimes of Iran's Government, we are led to one inescapable conclusion: It is the character of this Iranian regime, not just its behavior, that is the deeper threat to peace and freedom in our world and in Iran. Furthermore, I believe it will only be a change in the Iranian regime itself--a peaceful change, chosen by and led by the people of Iran-- that could finally produce the changes we seek in Iran's policy.

Even now, though, we hear it said again that Iran's democratic opposition has been beaten into submission. And I would not deny that a regime such as this one, which knows no limits to its ruthlessness, will achieve many of its goals for now. But when Iran's rulers are too afraid of their own people to tolerate even routine public demonstrations on regime holidays, as they recently have been, that is not a government that is succeeding. It is a cabal of criminals who understand that their morally bankrupt regime is now on the wrong side of Iranian history.

The question we must answer is, What side of Iranian history are we on? We must also ask ourselves another question: Is the goal of our sanctions and those of our friends and allies to persuade Iran's rulers to finally sit down and negotiate in good faith, to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, supporting terrorism, and abusing their own people? I truly hope this is possible, but that assumption seems totally at odds with the character of this Iranian regime.

For that reason, I would suggest a different goal: to mobilize our friends and allies and like-minded countries, both in the public sphere and the private sector, to challenge the legitimacy of this Iranian regime and to support Iran's people in changing the character of their government--peacefully, politically, on their own terms, and in their own ways.

Of course, the United States should never provide its support where it is unrequested and unwanted, but when young Iranian demonstrators write their banners of protest in English, when they chant ``Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them?'' that is a pretty good indication that we can do more, and should do more, to support their just cause.

We need to stand up for the Iranian people. We need to make their goals our goals, their interests our interests, their work our work. We need a grand national undertaking to broadcast information freely into Iran and to help Iranians access the tools to evade their government's censorship of the Internet. We need to name and shame, pressure and even penalize any company that sells Iran's government the tools it uses to oppress its people and block their access to information. We need to let the political prisoners in Iran's gruesome gulags know they are not alone, that their names and their cases are known to us and that we will hold their torturers and tormenters accountable for their crimes.

Finally, we need the administration to use the new authorities this bill creates to impose crippling sanctions on Iranian human rights abusers--to go after their assets, their ability to travel, and their access to the international financial system.

If there were ever any doubt, the birth of the Green Movement over the past year should convince us that Iran will have a democratic future. That future may be delayed for a while, but it will not be denied. Now is the time for the United States to position ourselves squarely on the right side of Iranian history. The Green Movement lives on. Its struggle endures, and I am confident that eventually--maybe not tomorrow or next year or even the year after that--eventually Iranians will achieve the democratic changes they seek for their country. The Iranian regime may appear intimidating now, but it is rotting inside. It has only brute force and fear to sustain it, and Iranians won't be afraid forever.

I am pleased we have finally finished this important piece of legislation. I am pleased it contains tough, targeted human rights sanctions. I urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to pass this bill.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that would fully repeal the Jones Act, a 1920s law that hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers. Specifically, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between waterborne ports of the United States be carried by vessels built in the United States and owned and operated by Americans. This restriction only serves to raise shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers less competitive and increasing costs for American consumers.

This was highlighted by a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission economic study, which suggested that a repeal of the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by approximately 22 percent. Also, a 2002 economic study from the same Commission found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Since these studies are the most recent statistics available, imagine the impact a repeal of the Jones Act would have today: far more than a $656 million annual positive welfare impact-- maybe closer to $1 billion. These statistics demonstrate that a repeal of the Jones Act could prove to be a true stimulus to our economy in the midst of such difficult economic times.

The Jones Act also adds a real, direct cost to consumers-- particularly consumers in Hawaii and Alaska. A 1988 GAO report found that the Jones Act was costing Alaskan families between $1,921 and $4,821 annually for increased prices paid on goods shipped from the mainland. In 1997, a Hawaii government official asserted that ``Hawaii residents pay an additional $1 billion per year in higher prices because of the Jones Act. This amounts to approximately $3,000 for every household in Hawaii.''

This antiquated and protectionist law has been predominantly featured in the news as of late due to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Within a week of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations, offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing oil spill debris, and as of June 2l, the State Department has acknowledged that overall ``it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.'' However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not permitted in U.S. waters.

The Administration has the ability to grant a waiver of the Jones Act to any vessel--just as the previous Administration did during Hurricane Katrina--to allow the international community to assist in recovery efforts. Unfortunately, this Administration has not done so.

Therefore, some Senators have put forward legislation to waive the Jones Act during emergency situations, and I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. However, the best course of action is to permanently repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order to spur job creation and promote free trade.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation that would fully repeal the Jones Act, a 1920s law that hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers. Specifically, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between waterborne ports of the United States be carried by vessels built in the United States and owned and operated by Americans. This restriction only serves to raise shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers less competitive and increasing costs for American consumers.

This was highlighted by a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission economic study, which suggested that a repeal of the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by approximately 22 percent. Also, a 2002 economic study from the same Commission found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Since these studies are the most recent statistics available, imagine the impact a repeal of the Jones Act would have today: far more than a $656 million annual positive welfare impact-- maybe closer to $1 billion. These statistics demonstrate that a repeal of the Jones Act could prove to be a true stimulus to our economy in the midst of such difficult economic times.

The Jones Act also adds a real, direct cost to consumers-- particularly consumers in Hawaii and Alaska. A 1988 GAO report found that the Jones Act was costing Alaskan families between $1,921 and $4,821 annually for increased prices paid on goods shipped from the mainland. In 1997, a Hawaii government official asserted that ``Hawaii residents pay an additional $1 billion per year in higher prices because of the Jones Act. This amounts to approximately $3,000 for every household in Hawaii.''

This antiquated and protectionist law has been predominantly featured in the news as of late due to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Within a week of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations, offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing oil spill debris, and as of June 2l, the State Department has acknowledged that overall ``it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.'' However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not permitted in U.S. waters.

The Administration has the ability to grant a waiver of the Jones Act to any vessel--just as the previous Administration did during Hurricane Katrina--to allow the international community to assist in recovery efforts. Unfortunately, this Administration has not done so.

Therefore, some Senators have put forward legislation to waive the Jones Act during emergency situations, and I am proud to cosponsor this legislation. However, the best course of action is to permanently repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order to spur job creation and promote free trade.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Dr. Barrasso.

Mr. President, as I understand it, it is about 90 days since the President signed the legislation known to some as ObamaCare and to others as the Medicare reform bill. But there have been some interesting developments in the intervening 90 days.

To quote the Speaker of the House, she said at the time, ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it.'' We are finding out what is in it. Remarkable events have taken place, ranging from the implementation that means that more than half--51 percent--of all employees in 2013 will be in plans that aren't grandfathered, despite the President's comment that if you like your insurance policy, you can keep it. Nearly 7 in 10--69 percent employees, 80 percent of workers, and small businesses--would lose their current plan within 3 short years.

Mr. President, I would like for my friend, Dr. Barrasso, to explain exactly how that happens. First, I would like to mention the issue du jour which, of course, is headlined on Politico this morning: ``Medicare Tussle Stymies Hill. Rift between Pelosi and Reid stands in the way of funding compromise.''

I think it is important to recognize the reason we did not do the so- called doc fix is because the majority did not want to do the doc fix, which means not implementing the 21-percent cut in reimbursement for doctors who treat Medicare patients. The reason we did not was because they had cooked the books on the cost of ObamaCare.

The fact is, they kept counting into the cost--in order to keep their commitment that it would cost less than $1 trillion--they kept counting in that there would be the 21-percent cut, a $281 billion difference over 10 years.

The AMA and all of those people who signed up with this bill are now saying: Why are you not doing the doc fix? We did the doc fix on Friday, I believe. It is now in the House, and we will probably do the doc fix. But why the delay? The delay is simply because they did not want to. On the floor of this Senate, they did not want to do the doc fix because of the budgetary impact on how they were selling this proposal to the American people.

I ask my colleague, Dr. Barrasso, to comment on that point and also what we are finding out as to how many Americans are actually going to lose the insurance policy they have. By the way, there is also an article this morning in USA TODAY entitled ``Doctors limit new Medicare patients,'' which was also predicted by some of us.

One thing my friends on the other side of the aisle might have forgotten is we cannot force doctors--they have not enacted a law yet that forces doctors to see Medicare patients. Therefore, a number of doctors are voting with their fee in the respect that they are not enrolling new Medicare patients they would treat.

I ask my colleague, Dr. Barrasso, if he would comment on the doc fix and also maybe a better explanation than I have been able to give as to why so many people face the loss of their health insurance policy between now and 2013.

As well as the Mayo Clinic.

May I ask, is that because of a minor change in the insurance policy they now have that then forces them out of the policy, even though there is a minor change? Maybe Dr. Barrasso can give us some of those examples of how minor they are, how they basically force them out of the policy they have into the ``exchanges.'' Is that what happens?

Some of those changes would simply be driven by pure economics and the escalating cost of health care on which clearly this legislation has no effect.

May I ask one more question of my friend? This is kind of a hometown issue, but 330,000 Arizona citizens who are enrolled in Medicare, who paid into Medicare all their working lives and have enrolled in this Medicare Advantage program which gives them choices are now going to have that severely impaired or eliminated. How does that happen? How is it when a program is offered to people who have paid into the system all their lives and they have chosen that Medicare Advantage program, and now it is going to be taken away from them. How does that work?

They have pledged basically to dismantle the Medicare Advantage program?

May I ask the Senator one more question. Did he have a chance to examine the $14 million--I believe it was $14 million, $18 million----

The mailer. I was trying to find a polite word--the mailer that was sent out to all Medicare enrollees and what conclusions he drew from that infomercial?

Mr. President, I thank Dr. Barrasso for his leadership on this issue. Those who are interested in his Web site, which is titled ``Second Opinion,'' might be interested in gaining more information from that Web site. My colleagues might be interested in that.

I thank Dr. Barrasso for his leadership on this issue, for his in depth knowledge of it. I noted the luncheon we had with the President of the United States. I applaud Dr. Barrasso's attempts to inform the President on this issue. I am not sure how receptive the audience was to it, but what he had to say made a lot of sense to me.

I know Dr. Barrasso shares my view that we are not going to quit on this issue. We are not going to quit on this issue. It is going to be repealed and replaced because we are not going to do this to the American people.

Still the overwhelming majority of the American people disapprove of this proposal. As the Speaker of the House said, we have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it. As they are finding out what is in it, more and more Americans dislike it.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. President, there has been a lot of conversation about the issue of illegal immigration and the results of different meetings.

And may I also make the comment that my colleague from Arizona points to about the terrible and unspeakable treatment that is inflicted upon these individuals who are brought in by human smugglers. Almost all are brought up by human smugglers. Where are the human rights advocates and activists? Shouldn't they be standing up and saying: You have to have a secure border so that these unspeakable indignities--the

rape and ransom and all these things--will be stopped?

Secondly, I want to point out very quickly to my colleagues that in recent years, 80 percent of the wildfires in our Coronado National Forest have been human caused--75 percent of those are attributed to undocumented aliens who fail to properly extinguish fires started to signal for rides, cook food, or dry clothing. The Coronado National Forest now has to send armed officers to clear wildland fire areas and to provide security for firefighters. The Forest Service has reported accounts of armed smugglers walking through the middle of active firefighting operations. And now, in its fourth week today, as we speak, the human-caused Horseshoe fire is burning in the Chiricahua Mountains in the Coronado National Forest, 5 miles from the town of Portal, AZ. It is the site of very heavy drug trafficking and border- crossing activity.

With the few minutes we have remaining, I want to engage Senator Kyl in a conversation about what we need to do and why we need to secure the border first. There has been a lot of publicity in the last 24 hours about a conversation that Senator Kyl had with the President of the United States. I was not there, but I was there a few weeks ago when the President of the United States came and had lunch with Republican Senators and gave a list of the issues that he was concerned about, with immigration being one of the items he mentioned. So Senator Kyl and I responded to the President of the United States.

It was made very clear to me in the conversation we had--and I am sure our 39 other colleagues who were there will recall--that the President basically conditioned his support for border security to overall comprehensive immigration reform. We went back and forth. I tried to explain to the President that we gave amnesty back in the 1980s. Somewhere around 3 million illegal immigrants were given amnesty, but the promise was that we would secure the border. Obviously, we didn't secure the border and we now have 12 million people in the country. As Senator Kyl mentioned, there are some hundreds of thousands in the State of Arizona illegally.

So our point is that even if we went through comprehensive immigration reform, if we don't have a secure border, then some time from now we will have another group of illegal immigrants we will have to address, and so the issue argues for getting the border secured first. It can be done in 1 or 2 years. It isn't that expensive, when you look at the costs of a wildfire and all of the things, drugs and everything else associated with it, not to mention a violation of human rights.

There is a big stir about the conversation the President and Senator Kyl had. It was clear to me in the conversation, in front of 39 Republican Senators, that the President of the United States said yes, he would secure the border, but we had to have ``comprehensive immigration reform.'' This is the difference between our position and that of the President. We say secure the border, have the Governors of the border States certify it is secure, and then we can certainly move on. But the American people have to have the assurance that we are not going to revisit this issue time after time. Every nation has the obligation to secure its borders.

What Senator Kyl and I are trying to report to our colleagues is, No. 1, the border is not secure. The border is not secure. No. 2, it can be secure. How could someone claim our border is more secure than ever if the Federal Government has to put up that kind of warning to American citizens on American soil? If nothing would convince my colleagues that we need to do a lot more, it is the actions of the Federal Government. That is not a private landowner who put up that sign. That is the Bureau of Land Management. So have the Department of Interior and other agencies.

The point is, we are trying to tell our colleagues it is not secure. We can secure it. Our citizens deserve that.

But the second point we want to make as forcefully as possible is: Let's get this border secure, which we can do, and then we can move forward with comprehensive immigration reform and work together with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But for us to go back to our constituents and to the American people, and say: Hey, we moved forward with this legislation, yet we still are having to put up signs such as this, that people should avoid being in an active drug and human smuggling area, in the United States of America, is not a convincing argument that they are ``as secure'' as ever.

Mr. President, there is no way I can elaborate on that very strong statement, so I yield the remainder of our time.

Madam President, I am pleased to be here to cosponsor and support my friend from South Dakota, Senator Thune, on this amendment. As the Senator from New Hampshire just stated, isn't it time we stopped burdening our children and our grandchildren with massive debt?

Our office is being flooded with calls concerning the extension of unemployment benefits. We want to extend the unemployment benefits under this amendment until November, but we want to pay for it. We want to do something groundbreaking around here that hasn't happened in a long time: We want to pay for it. We want to pay for the expiring unemployment provisions until November. We want to extend the expired tax provisions, including a tax credit for research and experimentation, and the State and local sales tax deduction through the end of the year. We want to drop the tax increases, drop the $4 billion extension of Build America bonds, and drop the $24 billion in State Medicaid bailouts. We want to fully pay for this with spending cuts. The amendment does provide relief for the doctors by adding an additional 2 years to the doc fix and reforming our broken and onerous medical malpractice system.

Let me point out that day after day during the ObamaCare debate we came to the floor and said: You are using phony assumptions as to assessments of the entire cost of ObamaCare, and part of that was the ``doc fix'' which wasn't going to happen, which was going to cut Medicare payments to physicians by some 21 percent. We said every time: You are not going to do this. You are not going to cut physician payments by some 21 percent for doctors who provide care for Medicare enrollees. Over on the other side, they even admitted it. So now we have to do the doc fix. We have to make sure doctors who treat Medicare patients are adequately reimbursed; otherwise, they will stop treating Medicare patients.

So it is kind of hypocritical for us to be blamed for the delay in the ``doc fix'' when that was the assumption--that was the assumption, that there would be a 21-percent cut in the selling of ObamaCare to the American people.

This amendment saves the taxpayers $113 billion in unnecessary spending. It rescinds $38 billion in the unobligated spending of stimulus funds. It cuts wasteful and unnecessary government spending. It collects the unpaid taxes of Federal employees. It freezes their salaries and caps their numbers. It imposes a 5-percent, across-the- board cut in government spending for all agencies except the VA and the DOD, and it creates a new deficit reduction trust fund where rescinded balances and monies saved through this amendment will be deposited for the purposes of paying down the Federal debt.

Now, regarding the 5-percent across-the-board cut in government spending for all agencies except Veterans and Department of Defense, do Americans know the size of government has doubled since 1999; that the cost of government has spiraled out of control? A 5-percent cut would be minuscule as compared to the dramatic increases we have imposed-- yes, during the previous administration, as well as this administration--including a $1 trillion unpaid-for Medicare Part D prescription drug program.

So this amendment cuts taxes, it cuts spending, and it reduces the deficit. The deficit has now spiraled so far out of control that there is no rational economist who believes this is sustainable without some kind of profound financial crisis. Now we are up to a projection of a $16 trillion deficit by the end of the next decade. We are amassing as far as the eye can see--I think now it is up to $1.6 trillion--debt just for this year alone that we are laying on our children and our grandchildren.

As I have said several times on this floor, there is a revolution going on out there. It is a peaceful revolution. It has been derided by the liberal left and many in the media. But the fact is, they are angry and they have every right to be angry. They have every right. The greatness of America is that every generation has passed on to the following generation a better Nation than the one we inherited. With this overwhelming burden of debt and deficit in the name of economic stimulus, in the name of job creation--which, obviously, has not met the predictions at the time of the passage of the stimulus package-- have turned out to be totally false.

So here we are. We are in a situation where we have an opportunity to extend the expiring unemployment provisions, extend the expired tax provisions, including an important tax credit for research and development. It drops things such as Build America bonds. Build America bonds. Please. Right now, that is just an additional $4 billion. We are going to cut spending, and we will provide relief for doctors by adding an additional 2 years for the doc fix.

Obviously, that fix needs to be enacted. I am in support of that. But isn't it a little bit of a hypocrisy to come to the floor and say we have to get this done, we have to have the doc fix, when all during the debate on so-called health care reform, the 21-percent cut for Medicare patients was part of our selling the American people that the cost of ObamaCare would be less than $1 trillion? Isn't that a little hypocritical?

I wish to quote from the New York Times recently:

If the economists are divided about what just happened, the

rest of the world is not divided about what should come next.

Voters, business leaders and political leaders do not seem to

think that the stimulus was such a smashing success that we

should do it again, even with today's high unemployment.

There is no better example than last May's unemployment numbers that show a drop from 9.9 to 9.7, until you get into the not-so-fine print: 41,000 jobs created in the private sector, and 440 new jobs, approximately, to hire census takers. That is what the stimulus is all about? Give me a break.

So this is our chance. This is our chance to show the American people that we are going to cut their taxes, we

are going to take care of the unemployed, we are going to make the doc fix, and we are going to at the same time cut spending and start at least a beginning attempt to get this burgeoning deficit under control. It reduces the deficit by some $68 billion.

Are there tough things in this measure? Of course. Of course there are tough things in this measure. But it is about time we started making some tough decisions because we do have an obligation to our children and our grandchildren which we have, up until now, clearly abrogated.

I hope my colleagues will consider voting for this amendment and get us on the path toward reducing this debt burden we are placing on future generations of Americans.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

After passage of legislation that was trumpeted everywhere that from now on we were going to pay for additional spending, how could that happen?

Mr. President, I am here to speak on the Murkowski resolution before us.

The American people deserve to fully understand what this vote is really about and what is at stake for them if Congress fails to prevent EPA from unilaterally imposing massive regulations that will damage our economy and destroy jobs.

I wish to be clear to my colleagues and to the American people. This vote is not about the science of climate change. It is not about whether Congress should or should not create policies to limit carbon emissions. It is not about protecting oil companies or, as the White House has absurdly claimed, the oilspill in the Gulf of Mexico. What this resolution is really about is whether the American people, through their elected representatives, get a say in our Nation's energy policy through their elected representatives or if they will be bound by the whims of the unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency. More importantly, it is about protecting the American people from a crippling backdoor energy tax that we, and small businesses and large, cannot afford.

I wish I could provide my colleagues and the American people with a detailed assessment of the impact EPA's proposed regulations would have on our economy, but the EPA has refused to provide Congress a comprehensive analysis of the potential economic impact. To paraphrase Speaker Pelosi's comment that we have to pass ObamaCare so we can find out what is in it, I guess EPA will need to impose new regulations on 6 million buildings, facilities, farms, and other ``stationary sources'' before we find out how much it will cost or what impact it will have on the economy.

There is one thing we can all agree on: Allowing the EPA to be turned loose on the American people is a terrible idea that will be extremely expensive. A spokesman from the Edison Electric Institute, which, to their shame, supports congressional efforts to pass a cap-and-trade bill, stated that the only certainty is that EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions would be far more expensive than if done by Congress.

Let's not forget what we now know about the legislation that was passed in the other body. That would cost families upwards--every family--of $1,000 a year. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget warned that:

Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the

Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious

economic consequences for

regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including

small business and small communities.

Even some bureaucrats at the EPA must have realized how crippling these regulations would be to small businesses and farmers, which is why they proposed a tailoring rule to delay the effect these regulations would have on the American public. Unfortunately for the American people, the tailoring rule stands on shaky legal ground.

This is really an Orwellian kind of experience. Demonstrating an unparalleled disregard for congressional intent, the EPA is attempting to make a case that Congress intended to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, even though greenhouse gas emissions were not formally addressed by the act. Conversely, EPA claims that the tons-per-year threshold set by Congress in the Clean Air Act should not apply to greenhouse gases. In simpler terms, EPA believes that although Congress didn't cover greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, it really did, and although Congress set thresholds for covered pollutants, it really didn't.

Finally, for those who claim this is somehow about protecting oil companies, I suggest we listen to what over 425 companies and organizations are saying about these regulations. Small business men and women across the country are telling us that EPA's proposed greenhouse gas requirements will stifle economic growth and disadvantage them in the global marketplace. I suggest we listen.

So here we are. Here we are. Last Tuesday, we had a vote where people turned out in massive numbers against what is going on in Washington. They believe their Constitution is being taken away from them. They believe they no longer have a voice in what we do here. What this EPA decision would do is deprive the Congress, our Nation's elected representatives, of a role in profound decisions that would have tremendous effects on the economy of this country.

I strongly suggest that no matter how you stand on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions or climate change, you reject this government, unelected bureaucrat takeover of a significant portion of the U.S. economy.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, here we are the day after some elections in various States around the country. I think everybody will draw their own conclusion as a result of those elections, but it is hard to dispute the assertion that the so-called tea party candidates did rather well in the elections around the country.

Those people who believe the disconnect between themselves and their neighbors and their fellow citizens and what we do here in our Nation's capital is clearly disconnected. The anger and dissatisfaction continues to be displayed in poll after poll and election after election. And why are they so upset?

Well, our national debt has just surpassed $13 trillion for the first time. We now, this morning, in a prediction, have predictions that it will surpass $19 trillion in 5 years.

In the first 206 years of this Nation's existence, we were able to accumulate a national debt of $1 trillion. Now it is going to take us 5 years to add $4 more trillion, up to $19 trillion. So what is the response now by the administration and my colleagues across the aisle? Another bill that addresses $10, $20, $30, $40, $50, $100 billion additional to the debt and, of course, not paid for. And here we are, after spending a good part of a $787 billion stimulus package, where we were promised and assured that if we passed that the maximum unemployment in the United States would be 8 percent. As we all know, it is now at 9.7 percent, with the latest job information with a paltry 41,000 new jobs, and 400,000 temporary government Census jobs.

So is it surprising to anyone that there is great anger and dissatisfaction throughout the country? We seem to be not just tone deaf but deaf, which brings me to the issue of the so-called health care reform.

CBO recently came forward and said, the real cost of the reform in its new authorization is over $1 trillion, something we were assured at the time, in the year-long debate, that it would not be over $1 trillion. It will cost over $2.6 trillion over its first 10 years of full implementation.

I guess there was the assumption that either the American people would forget the debate that was held here in the Congress or would forget these promises were made about the benefits of health care reform, but they were wrong. Recent polls show that about 60 percent of the American people still oppose the legislation that was passed through the Congress and signed by the President, to great fanfare.

In the immortal words of the Speaker of the House, who said, ``We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,'' the American people are finding out what is in it, including medical device makers who assert that the new tax on them will cost jobs because of a 2.3-percent excise tax on companies that supply medical devices such as heart defibrillators and surgical tools to hospitals. It will cost an estimated $20 billion. The list of taxes goes on and on.

The response of those on the other side of the aisle is to launch a $125 million health campaign. They will spend an estimated $25 million a year over 5 years so that, quoting from a Politico story:

The extraordinary campaign, which could provide an

unprecedented amount of cover for a White House in a policy

debate, reflects urgency among Democrats to explain, defend

and depoliticize health care reform now that people are

beginning to feel the new law's effects.

Interesting--$125 million.

To do its bit, the Medicare people have decided to spend--because we have lots of money; there are no worries--$18 million--chicken feed--in Medicare funds to send a mailer to Medicare beneficiaries. The flier is entitled ``Medicare and the New Health Care Law, What it Means for You.'' It was sent to 43 million Medicare beneficiaries under the guise of explaining how the new law will impact them. However, the brochure goes into great detail about provisions of the law that do not even apply to seniors and leaves out any mention of the cuts they will face. For example, 330,000 of my fellow citizens in Arizona are enjoying a program called Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage does what the government doesn't want our Medicare recipients to do, and that is to give people choices on dental care, eyeglasses, other decisions they would make. Of course, those people will see the Medicare Advantage program, which is very popular, dismantled under this law.

The flier and the President point out that over $500 billion in Medicare cuts could jeopardize seniors' health care, forcing millions to pay more. The cuts, according to the Obama administration's own Medicare actuaries, will lead to 7.4 million Medicare beneficiaries losing their health plan because of the $206 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage. The CBO estimates that Medicare prescription drug coverage premiums will increase by 9 percent as a result of that law.

I look forward to continuing this debate with the President and my friends. He took time out from his musical evenings to have a health care townhall yesterday to talk about this great benefit to the American people that his legislation has brought. Unfortunately, seniors and the American people are not fooled.

I quote from a Wall Street Journal article of May 28, 2010:

In the full-circle department, recall the moment last

September when Senator Max Baucus and Medicare went after the

insurer Humana for having the nerve to criticize one part of

ObamaCare. It turns out those same regulators have different

standards for their own political advocacy.

This week Medicare sent a flyer to seniors, ostensibly to

inform them of what ObamaCare ``means for you.'' Many elderly

Americans are worried--and rightly so--about where they'll

rank in national health care, given that the new entitlement

is funded by nearly a half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts.

They must have been relieved to hear that ``The Affordable

Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama

this year will provide you and your family greater savings

and increased quality health care.''

That's the first sentence of the four-page mailer, and it

gives a flavor of the Administration's respect for the

public's intelligence. It goes on to mention ``improvements

to Medicare Advantage,'' the program that Democrats hate

because it gives nearly one out of four seniors private

health insurance options. ``If you are in a Medicare

Advantage plan, you will still receive guaranteed Medicare

benefits.''

But that's not what Medicare's own actuary thinks. In an

April memo, Richard Foster estimated that the $206 billion

hole in Advantage will reduce benefits, cause insurers to

withdraw from the program and reduce overall enrollment by

half. Doug Elmendorf and his team at the Congressional Budget

Office came to the same conclusion, as did every other honest

expert.

I don't know if my colleagues will recall, but the first amendment we had proposed from this side when the bill came to the floor was to prohibit cuts in Medicare. Now we are seeing that there will be a $206 billion hole in Medicare Advantage that will reduce benefits and cause insurers to withdraw from the program and reduce overall enrollment by half, just as we predicted on the floor of the Senate.

I look forward to coming back to the floor with my friend from Tennessee and others as we continue this debate. Perhaps we should have been discussing it more all along. I can assure my colleagues, from the many townhall meetings I am having all over the State of Arizona, the people of Arizona, especially those in programs such as Medicare Advantage and others, are deeply concerned and deeply skeptical.

Our proposal still remains valid. Starting next January, we will make every effort to repeal and replace because we cannot lay this burden on future generations of Americans.

I yield the floor.