Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment, and I call up my amendment No. 753.

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

Mr. President, I filed amendment No. 753 to H.R. 2012, the appropriations minibus. My amendment would prohibit the use of funds for fiscal year 2012 for the prosecution of enemy combatants in our article III courts. This prohibition would apply to individuals who are members of al-Qaida or affiliated terrorist groups and who have participated in the course of planning or carrying out attacks against our country, the United States of America, or our coalition partners.

In no other conflict have we treated our enemies as criminals and tried them in our civilian court system. I believe we need to stop criminalizing this war, and that is why I have brought forward this amendment. These individuals should be treated with military custody and tried in military commissions, and that is why I have brought forward this amendment at this time.

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

Mr. President, I rise in response to the comments by my esteemed colleague from Colorado about my amendment No. 753. And I would say this first. My amendment does not provide immunity to terrorists. What my amendment does is treat terrorists as they should be treated.

We are at war, and under the laws of war, traditionally we have tried enemy combatants in military commissions. And those individuals my colleague from Colorado cited, including Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, could be held accountable in a military commission because our priority has to be, when we are at war, to gather intelligence, to protect our country, and not whether we should prosecute in our article III courts, in which I have great confidence. I served as attorney general of our State and believe very much in our article III court system. But our article III court system is not where terrorists with whom we are at war should be tried.

In light of the recent comments here on the floor, I feel compelled to point out some of the facts that I think are important for the American people to know about some of the cases that have been cited in support of saying terrorists should be tried in article III courts.

On October 12, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pleaded guilty in the U.S. district court in Detroit. That case has been cited not only by the Senator from Colorado but by the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Illinois, and our Attorney General has cited it as well as the ultimate and final vindication of the use of our civilian courts for the trial of enemy combatants. The senior Senator from Illinois and the Obama administration were so confident that the so-called Underwear Bomber, as he has been named, guilty plea would settle the dispute once and for all, that on October 13, the Senator from Illinois came to the floor and essentially declared the controversy over. We have heard those same arguments today.

I think we need to review who exactly Abdulmutallab is. He is no common criminal. We are not talking about people who have robbed liquor stores or who are Americans who have committed criminal acts in this country. He is the Nigerian man who tried to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while onboard Northwest Airline's flight 253 to Detroit on December 25, 2009. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula claimed to have organized the attack with the Underwear Bomber claiming that AQAP supplied him with the bomb and trained him.

He was subsequently charged in Federal court with eight counts, including the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder of 290 Americans. The Underwear Bomber pleaded guilty at trial, telling a surprised courtroom on the second day of his trial that the failed attack was in retaliation for the killing of Muslims worldwide.

This case has been cited as the final vindication for civilian trials, and I

think it is important to mention three points about this case.

First of all, the presumption seems to be that the civilian court system should have the primary responsibility for questioning, trying, and ultimately detaining foreign enemy combatants with whom the United States is in a declared war. That has not been the rule in prior conflicts. We are treating this conflict differently than we have treated other conflicts, where enemy combatants have been tried in military commissions.

Secondly, in my view, the administration's eagerness to appease the ACLU by trying enemy combatants in civilian courts misses the whole point about detention in a time of war. When we are at war, we detain and interrogate enemy combatants according to the laws of war to glean valuable intelligence that will help prevent future attacks, save American lives, and help us capture other enemy combatants.

Al-Qaida was at war with the United States long before our country recognized or strongly reacted to this threat. We remain at war with al-Qaida. When we put enemy combatants in our civilian court system, we are focusing on prosecution, and we potentially miss important opportunities to gather information to prevent future attacks by doing so.

In Abdulmutallab's case, the administration read him his Miranda rights after 50 minutes of questioning. In my view, this jeopardized valuable intelligence. And I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said: Well, eventually he spoke, and he gave us lots of information. But why would we put information in jeopardy? Why would we read terrorists Miranda rights? I, as a prosecutor, have never heard a law enforcement official tell me that Miranda rights are a helpful information-gathering tool, but that seems to be the position I am hearing today.

Jeopardizing this intelligence was clearly unnecessary. And in this case, the fact that we didn't have to rely on a confession--this was a case where we caught the Underwear Bomber redhanded. So even if we were to have tried him in a military commission and had not given him Miranda rights, had gathered intelligence for as long as we could have, we still would have had him redhanded because the passengers on that flight saw him. He was caught with the explosives on his body. This was never a case about a guilty plea and whether we got some information about him. The essential question is whether we got the most information possible from a terrorist who was trying to attack Americans and our allies, to prevent future attacks, not whether we gave him Miranda rights.

With a case that was as open and shut as Abdulmutallab's, without any need to use confessional evidence or classified information, it doesn't prove the civilian court system is superior to military commissions. His conviction was never realistically in doubt.

Defenders of bringing our enemy combatants to the U.S. civilian trial often cite a number of cases and convictions related to military commissions. Again, I want to reiterate, I am a strong believer in our civilian court system, but I want to point out some of the downsides to using our civilian court system for enemy combatants: the costs of security; the cause of civic disruption in the area; the risk of compromising classified information; and the risk of eventual release of these combatants not to some other country but into American society, regardless of whether they are convicted in civilian court. And these concerns aren't academic.

I have heard some of my colleagues cite the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was a member of al-Qaida who was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The civilian proceedings spanned nearly a decade, and his case was finally resolved only last year. These proceedings cost millions of dollars and caused substantial civic disruption. For example, the Federal courthouse in Alexandria, VA, was described as ``an armed camp, with the courthouse complex and surrounding neighborhood becoming a virtual encampment, with heavily armed guards, rooftop snipers, bomb- sniffing dogs, blocked streets and identification checks.'' If we had tried him at Guantanamo Bay, in the military commission there, these security concerns would have been accounted for, and we wouldn't have had to disrupt Virginia to do that. It is not a problem we would confront in our military commission system.

In addition, in the civilian trial of 9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, sensitive material was inadvertently leaked because our civilian court system, as wonderful as it is, is not set up as well to deal with cases involving sensitive information during a time of war.

Moussaoui also mocked 9/11 victims and used the civilian trial as a platform to spew terrorist propaganda.

All of these negative side effects of trying a terrorist in a civilian court would have been eliminated or significantly mitigated if he had been detained in military custody and tried before a military commission.

In the case of Omar Abdel Rahman, commonly known as the Blind Sheik, which has also been cited here today, the civilian trial provided intelligence to Osama bin Laden. So when I hear that case cited as a success, the first thing that comes to my mind is, if intelligence was provided to Osama bin Laden, how is that a success when our No. 1 focus should be on protecting the American people? And that has to be the distinction between trying enemy combatants in a time of war and the very important purpose of our civilian court system.

In the case of the Blind Sheik, according to Michael Mukasey, the former Attorney General, ``in the course of prosecuting Omar Abdel Rahman, the government was compelled--as it is in all cases that charge a coconspiracy charge--to turn over a list of unindicted coconspirators to the defendants. Within 10 days, a copy of that list of unindicted coconspirators reached bin Laden in Khartoum.''

The notion that a list--because you had to do it, according to our civilian court system where notice requirements are very important, where generally our court systems are open--would be provided to Osama bin Laden, in my view, is unacceptable, a risk we could have avoided if we treated the Blind Sheik as he should have been treated, which is as an enemy combatant and tried in a military commission.

Civilian trials of enemy combatants have provided a treasure trove of information to terrorists, and I think those risks have been very discounted by my esteemed colleagues who have come to the floor to oppose my amendment.

According to open source reporting, the cost of disclosing information unwisely became clear after the New York trials of bin Laden associates for the 1998 bombings of U.S. Embassies in Africa. Some of the evidence indicated that the National Security Agency, the U.S. foreign eavesdrop organization, had intercepted cell phone conversations. Shortly thereafter, bin Laden's organization stopped using cell phones to discuss sensitive operational details.

It is also important to note that the record of trying enemy combatants in civilian courts is not as good as it has been made out to be. Opponents of my amendment don't often speak about Ahmed Ghailani.

Ghailani is a Tanzanian who was charged with a total of 284 counts, including 200-plus counts of murder and 1 count of conspiracy in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The bombings killed 224 people, including 12 Americans. He also spent time as Osama bin Laden's bodyguard.

He was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Department of Justice directed the U.S. attorney not to seek the death penalty. At trial, the presiding justice excluded from evidence the testimony of a key witness--a Tanzanian, who may have issued statements implicating him in the bombings. And on November 17, 2010, a jury, after this evidence was excluded, found Ghailani only guilty of 1 count of a conspiracy and acquitted him of all 284 other charges, including the murder charges. He murdered 284 people--12 Americans--and he was acquitted of murder charges. I think that is a case that shows our civilian court system is not always the best way to deal with enemy combatants and is very contrary to what I have heard on the cases cited from my opponents of this amendment.

Proponents of civilian trial, such as Attorney General Holder, want to criminalize the war, but they fail to cite these cases where the civilian

court system leaked classified information to terrorists or, because of excluded evidence, where terrorists are not held fully accountable.

Military detention for enemy combatants has always been the rule, not the exception. Why are we treating this war any differently? Civilian courts rightly focus on prosecution, but in detaining enemy combatants when at war, they miss the most important goal we have to have; that is, gathering intelligence and protecting the American people against future attacks.

Civilian trials for enemy combatants incur tremendous costs and cause civic disruption. That is why the administration itself has reversed its position on trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City. They wanted to try the mastermind behind 9/11 in the middle of New York City, but the American people were so outraged by trying someone who is the mastermind of 9/11 in the middle of New York City and the millions of dollars it would have cost to protect the citizens of New York from this horrible individual, giving him a forum in the middle of New York City.

Again, the costs associated with protecting the American people in these civilian trials alone is enough to treat them as they should be-- in military commissions.

We risk compromising classified information, and we risk the eventual release of these combatants into American society.

For these reasons, consistent with a longstanding precedent, we should not be bringing enemy combatants to the United States for civilian trials. If the Obama administration is willing to kill enemy combatants without due process, and I applaud them for doing so, why is the administration so against placing these same enemy combatants in military custody and detaining them under the law of war, and when appropriate trying them in military commissions?

I think the answer is clear. Unfortunately, I am concerned that it is a political decision rather than putting intelligence gathering first in order to protect the American people and treat these enemy combatants as what they are--enemies of our country. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. In my view, beyond the policy reasons for not trying enemy combatants in civilian courts, we should ask ourselves why should we bring foreign terrorists to the United States and give them the legal protections reserved for U.S. citizens and secured by those Americans who have fought and died for those rights? Why do these people deserve access to our American court system? They are our enemies. In the civilian court systems there are rights guaranteed, such as Miranda rights and speedy presentment, that should not be extended to enemy combatants. We need to prioritize protecting our country. I think the American people will agree with me when I say that no terrorist should ever hear the words ``you have the right to remain silent.''

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment No. 753.

I thank Senator Chambliss. I would say this. The Senator highlighted the importance, No. 1, as did Senator McCain, of passing Defense authorization. I have been to the floor twice on this issue because I think it is so important for our country, the notion that it has been half a century since the last time we failed to pass this authorization. What is at stake for our troops and the message it sends to them? We are in two wars. There are threats that face our country and our military men and women every day. We owe it to them that they know we are going to pass this authorization to address issues such as pay increases and weapons that they need and all of the fundamental day-to-day issues to make sure they know we are behind them.

I would summarize the issue of the detainee policy of this country over the past few months in the Armed Services Committee as military leader after military leader has come before our committee and we have asked them about this issue, about how we treat detainees. I questioned GEN Carter Ham, commander of the Africa command, about what we would do if we captured a member of al-Qaida in Africa. Do you know what he said? He said he would need lawyerly help to answer that one. Is that what we have come to, our commanders need lawyerly help in order to know how to deal with captured terrorists and how to treat them within our system to make sure we have a secure place to gather intelligence from them and to ensure that the American people and our allies are protected?

The majority leader is holding up the entire authorization bill with this detainee compromise, which was an overwhelmingly bipartisan compromise. This provision in the committee was voted 25 to 1 in support of this because there is such a need to address how we treat detainees. As Senator Chambliss already highlighted, we have a 27- percent recidivism rate from those who have been released from Guantanamo. Here are a couple of examples of what those individuals are doing right now against us, our troops, and our allies. For example, the No. 2 in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula was someone we released from Guantanamo.

Another top commander of the Taliban in the Quetta Shura who is out planning attacks against us is someone we released from Guantanamo. That is why this issue cries out for a detention policy for our country. This is a very important issue to be brought to the floor along with the entire authorization.

I see my colleague from South Carolina here, Senator Graham, who I know has worked very closely on these detention issues as a JAG attorney and is someone who visited Afghanistan in August.

First, I would ask, during his time in the Senate, has he seen the Senate act like this with the Defense authorization? Second, how important does the Senator think it is we address this detainee issue?

I wish to add as well, this detainee compromise, as Senator McCain and I have talked about before, is actually for--the group of individuals we are talking about here--having military custody for members of al-Qaida or affiliated groups who are planning an attack against the United States or its coalition partners. You think about that category of individuals. The most dangerous category of individuals we have to address is why we came to the compromise in committee, that the default would be military custody for those individuals, and it is inconsistent with the administration's position.

If you think about it, they are, rightly so--and I agree with them-- undertaking taking out members of al-Qaida around the world who fall under that category, who are out there killing Americans and plotting against Americans and our allies. Yet they are objecting to a provision, a detainee provision, that would give guidance to our military and intelligence leaders that those individuals should be treated, in the first instance, with military custody. It seems to me to be very inconsistent with what they have been doing in other contexts, and, obviously, this is a category of individuals who, on a bipartisan basis, we agreed in committee was the most dangerous category of individuals, who should be held in the first instance in military custody.

I want to add that Mr. Brennan, whom the majority leader has cited on behalf of the administration as objecting to this provision, does not seem to--in his speech at Harvard that he gave recently--appreciate who this provision applies to and that there is actually a national security waiver in the provision. So I would ask the administration and Mr. Brennan, again, to read the provisions that were passed on a bipartisan basis by the committee because this is such a key issue to move forward to give guidance to our military. But I am concerned that the administration's objections to this are misguided and they have not read the actual legislation on which we are working.

It is my hope, as our leader, the minority leader, has said, that we will move forward with passing the critical pieces for our troops because our troops deserve nothing less than for us to bring this forward to the floor because of the pay raises, the weapons systems they deserve to have, everything that is in that bill. But, also, I would ask the administration to revisit its position because it seems inconsistent with its own policies, and they do not seem to have actually read the compromise that was overwhelmingly passed out of the Armed Services Committee.

I would say to our distinguished Republican leader, I think that is what is at the heart of this, that they want to treat these individuals in the context of our civilian court system; otherwise, why would you object to a provision on military custody for those who are members of al-Qaida who are planning an attack against the United States or have attacked the United States? Also, I would point out, there is a national security waiver in this provision. So the only thing I can take from it is that they do want to treat this war as people who are at war with us as civilians as opposed to who they are--enemies of our country.

I would say that is an absolute concern here because this would be the first war in the history of our country where we would be giving those we capture on the battlefield the rights to our civilian court system. Where do we draw the line? It would be outrageous to require members of our military and intelligence officials to immediately ask: Do I have to give Miranda rights? Do I have to worry about some of the speedy trial and presentment issues that come from a civilian court system?

That is why, in the guidance of the committee, on a bipartisan basis, for this category of individuals, the presumption should be military custody because these are individuals who are enemy combatants with whom we are at war. That is fundamentally what is at issue. It does seem inconsistent--with what the administration is doing in terms of rightly going after these individuals around the world, and killing them in certain instances--that we would not provide them with military custody in the first instance.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleague Senator REED, the Strategic Airlift Force Structure Reform Act of 2011.

Current Federal law U.S. Code Title 10, 8062(g)(1) sets the Air Force's minimum number of strategic airlift aircraft at 316. However, based on the Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study-2016, Department of Defense and Air Force officials have testified approximately 300 aircraft can meet our nation's strategic airlift capacity requirements.

During a July 13, 2011, Senate Armed Services Subcommittee hearing, Christine Fox, Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, CAPE, in the Office of Secretary of Defense; General Duncan McNabb, Commander of U.S. Transportation Command, TRANSCOM; and General Raymond Johns, Commander of Air Mobility Command, AMC, testified that reducing the number to around 300 aircraft would allow the Air Force to meet airlift requirements while saving over $1.2 billion and not increasing operational risk. In fact, General Johns testified that strategic airlift aircraft in excess of 301 were ``over capacity'' that forces ``extra workload on our airmen to keep that capability when we don't need to utilize it.''

Based on this testimony, the Strategic Airlift Force Structure Act of 2011 would reduce the strategic airlift aircraft floor from 316 to 301.

In this time of fiscal austerity, Congress needs to stop forcing the Pentagon to spend defense dollars maintaining aircraft that our warfighters say they don't need. Every defense dollar wasted deprives our warfighters of the resources they have actually requested. Reducing the aircraft floor is a commonsense step that would save taxpayers millions of dollars while ensuring that our military continues to meet strategic airlift requirements.

I encourage my colleagues to carefully review our legislation and I welcome their comments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to welcome the imminent arrival of free trade agreements that are long-overdue in this Chamber. Our Nation grew to be the leader of the free world through trade and commerce, and we must not lose sight of the fact that safeguarding our access to world markets is essential to maintaining our economic preeminence.

These free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama which I look forward to supporting this evening, represent real measures that will produce jobs and provide better opportunities for our manufacturers to sell their goods abroad. Given our faltering economy and the continuing high rate of unemployment, it is significant that today we can vote to implement policy that will put Americans to work and let our businesses compete on a level playing field with foreign competitors. Gaining access to hundreds of millions of consumers across the globe will have a monumental effect on our local economies.

For years, most goods from Colombia and Panama have entered the U.S. duty-free, and it is about time that the President submitted these agreements to Congress so that American businesses can enjoy equal treatment. Despite having successfully negotiated treaties on his desk, the President stood by as other countries signed free trade pacts with these nations, forcing American exporters to watch as international competitors benefited. As the global economy continues to evolve, the submission of these agreements for congressional consideration is an important step to spur further trade and contribute to the growth of our economy at a time when it is so badly needed.

During these challenging economic times, American businesses should not have to face trade barriers, such as high tariffs, which put them at a competitive disadvantage. Since 1997, New Hampshire's exports to Colombia have increased by nearly 1,300 percent, nearly 200 percent to Panama, and by 324 percent to South Korea. However, U.S. exporters pay billions of dollars a year through tariffs on industrial goods. After these free trade agreements go into effect, 95 percent of those tariffs will be eliminated, meaning that American businesses will benefit by expanding payroll and consumers will benefit by lowered costs for goods and services.

With the highest growth rate in the Northeast and the fourth highest growth rate in the country, New Hampshire in particular stands to benefit from these agreements. New Hampshire exported $4.4 billion worth of merchandise in 2010, a major component of our State's approximately $60 billion total GDP. We have 15,000 New Hampshire jobs supported by exports, which represents a quarter of our manufacturing sector. The improved access to foreign markets brought about by these agreements will allow our industries to continue to grow and contribute to the economic environment that has made New Hampshire an attractive place for entrepreneurs to come to build their businesses.

We need these free trade agreements because we need to commit to economic policies that will create jobs and grow our economy.

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

I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with Senator John McCain.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the state of affairs and where we are in the Senate, particularly with regard to the Defense authorization bill. Right now in the Senate--I am a freshman Member of this body--it has been over 2 years since we passed a budget. We have only passed one appropriations bill. Last week, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate because they did not want to vote on amendments.

For the first time in my lifetime, the Defense authorization bill is not being brought to the floor by the majority leader. This is at a time when we are engaged in two wars and the threats to us and our allies from the Islamist terrorists remain. In fact, today authorities broke up an alleged plot to bomb the Israeli and Saudi Arabian Embassies in Washington and to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States. At a time such as this, when there is nothing more important we can do in the Senate than to ensure the national security of the American people, the majority leader is refusing to bring forward the Defense authorization bill to this floor because he objects to one provision in it addressing detainees.

I am concerned that this is no longer the most deliberative body in the world. I am new here, and I am often asked what has surprised me most as a new Senator, and I have to say, honestly, how few votes I have taken since I have been in the Senate. In fact, the number of votes I have taken in the Senate since I have been here is far below what we took last year and what we took the year before.

What could be more important than voting on the Defense authorization bill when our country faces issues such as these in terms of our national security?

I would ask my distinguished colleague from Arizona, who is a senior Member of this body, whether he has seen the Senate like this. Is this how the Senate is supposed to operate?

Senator McCain, first of all, is absolutely right. This was an

overwhelmingly bipartisan vote in support of the detainee provisions, according to Senator Reid, and that is why they are not being brought forward to the floor.

In my view, the President's counterterrorism adviser, Mr. Brennan, has it wrong. I am not sure he has read this legislation based on the objections he has raised because we are giving the President authority to detain, which is very important authority which he can exercise based on the national security of this country.

In order to have military custody, you have to be a member of al- Qaida or an affiliated force and planning an attack against us or our coalition partners. That is where the military custody comes in place, and I think that is very important because, of course, if you are a member of al-Qaida and you are planning an attack against the United States of America or our coalition partners, it seems to me that is a very appropriate instance for military custody given that we remain at war with al-Qaida and that the threats from al-Qaida are still very grave to our country, as demonstrated by----

I am really concerned that Mr. Brennan, again, has not read this legislation because that statement is not correct. As the Senator knows--he worked very hard on a compromise with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Levin, and Senator Graham, and in that compromise provision that we passed in a very strong, overwhelmingly bipartisan vote to have military custody, you have to be a member of al-Qaida and planning an attack against us or our coalition partners. It is limited to a very narrow category of very dangerous individuals. It isn't every single terrorist who is encountered.

The important issue is that when you read Mr. Brennan's speech, did you see anywhere in his speech to Harvard where he talked about this topic where he ever mentioned what is happening with those who have been released from Guantanamo?

Senator McCain is absolutely right. It is outrageous that one provision that was a bipartisan provision is holding up the authorization from coming forward when it addresses things such as pay raises for our military. It addresses services for our wounded warriors. It addresses military construction that is needed for our soldiers. Those are very important issues. To hold this up at a time when we are at war, at a time when our soldiers need to know we are fully behind them, does a huge disservice to our country. This is an issue that, if there are problems with the detainee issues, should be debated on the floor. The American people deserve to know.

Guantanamo Director Clapper testified before the Intelligence Committee that the recidivism rate now is 27 percent for those reengaging in the battle, detainees whom we have released who are encountering our soldiers and our coalition partners, trying to harm Americans. So to not bring forward the Defense authorization bill, A, to help our soldiers and, most importantly, to do what is right for them, but also, B, to have a rigorous debate over this very important issue of protecting our soldiers from those detainees who have gone back and making sure we are protecting them and that we have a place to put those who are captured now, seems to me to be a disservice to this body and to our country.

I thank very much the Senator from Arizona. No one has been more dedicated to our military through his own service and the service of his family but also as a ranking member of the Armed Services Committee who has worked across the aisle to bring forward this Defense authorization bill. I would share in his comments, and I hope the majority leader will bring this forward. It is so important for our country.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the majority leader's refusal to bring the Defense authorization bill to the floor. On Monday, the Majority leader came to the floor and acknowledged the importance of bringing the Defense authorization bill forward. He said, ``It is vital that we get to this bill and pass it.''

I could not agree more. That is why it is nothing short of outrageous that the majority leader is blocking this important bill from being debated and passed by the Senate based on misguided objections that the administration has raised to a bipartisan provision in the Defense authorization bill which addresses how we detain and treat terrorists who are captured under the law of war.

The American people and our military men and women deserve better. The 2012 National Defense Authorization Act addresses many essential issues for our warfighters. I want to mention just a few of the important measures that the majority leader is blocking from consideration by failing to bring this bill to the floor. The bill ensures that our warfighters have the weapons they need to win the fight, ranging from small arms and ammunition to tactical vehicles to satellites. Some examples include advanced helicopters and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as combat loss replacement. It helps ensure that our soldiers and their families have quality housing. The authorization gives our wounded warriors better access to educational opportunities.

The bill enhances the deployment cycle support system and reintegration for our National Guard and Reserve given how much they have done in sacrificing with the multiple deployments they have endured. It strengthens oversight of our taxpayer dollars that are being used for reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, and it ensures that our money does not continue to be funneled to our enemies.

What is so disappointing is that the majority leader is willing to prevent passage of the Defense authorization bill, which addresses these essential needs I have talked about for our warfighters and our soldiers, because the Obama administration does not like one provision of the bill, the detainee provision of the bill that was passed overwhelmingly by Senators from both parties who serve on the Armed Services Committee.

If the majority leader insists on preventing the Defense authorization bill

from coming to the floor this year, 2011 would be the first year since 1960 in which the Congress has not passed the Defense Authorization Act. In over 50 years, this would be the first time this bill has not been passed by this esteemed body.

Let me say that again. Here is where we are: in the midst of two wars, with our brave sons and daughters, husbands and wives fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan--and I am the wife of a combat veteran who served in Iraq--with our country facing a very serious threat from radical Islamist terrorists, this would be the first time in a half century in which we have not passed the National Defense Authorization Act.

It would be shameful to not bring forward the Defense authorization bill to the floor and to pass it, after robust debate, where Senators from both parties can amend it, we can talk about it, and we can let the American people know what is in this bill.

I met recently with the sergeant major of the Marine Corps. Sergeant Major Barrett shared with me the stories of several marines serving our country. I cannot discuss all of them, but I want to give a few examples. One is Sergeant Ramirez, a squad leader assigned to the 1st Battalion 5th Marines in Helmand Province in Afghanistan.

Sergeant Ramirez has a hook as a left hand. In February of 2006 Sergeant Ramirez lost his hand when he was wounded in action while serving in Iraq with the 3rd Battalion 5th Marines. Now he is leading patrols in Afghanistan. He wanted to go back and serve our country. Talk about bravery. Talk about courage.

There is also Sergeant Gill at Quantico and Corporal Pacheco at Camp Pendleton and thousands of other soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who after being injured on the battlefield have continued to serve their country. They are doing their jobs with skill and courage in this 10th year that our country is at war. I just wish we would show half, even a quarter of the courage of our military men and women in taking up the important issues that need to be addressed to protect our country, and many of them are addressed in this Defense Authorization Act.

That is why I am on the floor today. I think it is so important this bill be brought forward and we have a debate over it; that we are allowed to amend it and allowed to pass it to make sure our military men and women know we are fully behind them.

I know the majority leader has said if we just drop the detainee provision in the bill that he would bring forward the Defense authorization bill. But this is not how this body is designed to operate. If Senator Reid and the administration do not like the detainee provision in the bill, Senator Reid should move to amend it or vote against the bill rather than prevent the entire Defense authorization from being considered. That is how the Senate is supposed to operate.

Of course, the irony is that in a place where we rarely agree on anything, the detainee provision that is holding up this bill the administration has objected to actually received overwhelming support in the Armed Services Committee--25 out of 26 members of the Armed Services Committee voted for this detainee compromise. That rarely happens around here. I think it shows this was a thoughtful compromise and that members of both sides of the aisle worked hard to address this important issue.

This compromise was actually a compromise put together by Chairman Levin of the committee, ranking member John McCain of the committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham, who also has substantial experience in the Guard as a Judge Advocate General attorney.

The overall Defense Authorization Act passed out of the Armed Services Committee 26 to 0. How often does that happen around here, that every single member of the Armed Services Committee from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, and Senator Lieberman an Independent, that we all voted to pass this bill? Yet this bill that is so important to our national security and to our warfighters is being held up right now from being considered and brought to the floor.

In this era of partisanship, the American people want us to work together, and that is what we did. As a result, not a single member, as I mentioned, voted against the final bill. That is not to suggest that every member of the Armed Services Committee got what they wanted in that compromise. I was someone who fought hard in the committee for the compromise to be tougher on terrorists.

But I respect that we came together as colleagues to come to this compromise and to move forward on the Defense Authorization Act so it could be brought for full consideration for every Member of the Senate. If the majority leader were to bring this compromise to the Senate according to normal and well-understood procedures, every Member of this Senate, including the majority leader and myself, would have the opportunity to debate it, to amend it, and to vote on the Defense authorization bill, including the detainee compromise I just referenced.

I may be new around here, but I must ask: Why isn't the majority leader bringing this forward? I know he is clearly doing the administration's bidding on these detainee issues. But why would he prevent the American people from hearing this important debate? Why would giving terrorists greater rights to our civilian detention and court system, which seems to be the administration's position, be more important than ensuring that our warfighters have the right weapons and equipment, or ensuring that our wounded warriors get better access to educational opportunities, and all of the other important issues that are addressed in the Defense authorization bill related to both our national security and to our warfighters?

I believe those issues deserve to be addressed by debating and passing this bill. I also believe the American people deserve to know all of the facts about where we are with respect to our detention policy with terrorists.

I have to tell you, as a new member of the Armed Services Committee during the last 8 months and having our military leaders come before that committee, when I have asked them about our detention policy and how we are treating terrorists we have captured, how we are gathering intelligence from them, what we are doing to protect the American people, I have been shocked to learn that 27 percent of the terrorists we have released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility have actually returned to the battle or we suspect have returned to the battle to harm us and our allies.

Too many former Guantanamo Bay detainees are now actively engaged in terrorist activities and are trying to kill Americans. Former Guantanamo detainees are conducting suicide bombings, recruiting radicals, and training them to kill Americans and our allies. Said al- Shihri and Abdul Zakir represent two examples of former Guantanamo detainees who have returned to the fight and have assumed leadership positions in terrorist organizations that are dedicated to killing Americans and our allies.

Said al Shihri has worked as the No. 2 in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. Abdul Zakir now serves as a top Taliban military commander and a senior leader in the Taliban Quetta Shura.

Can you imagine having to tell a mom or a dad that their son or daughter was killed in Afghanistan by a terrorist whom we released from Guantanamo Bay?

Given the facts, I understand why the majority leader and the Obama administration don't want to talk about our detention policy, but as John Adams said, facts are stubborn things. The American people deserve to hear this debate and to have us address this issue through the Defense Authorization Act.

Under our Constitution, we have a fundamental duty to protect the American people and to provide for our warfighters.

We owe it to our military men and women to take up the Defense Authorization Act right now. Majority Leader Reid, as the leader of this esteemed body, should allow that to happen so we can fulfill our responsibility to the American people.

Let me conclude by urging the majority leader to bring the defense authorization bill forward for debate, for amendment, and for passage. In the midst of two wars, it is time Congress does its job and provides for our warfighters and their needs.

Sergeant Ramirez, Sergeant Gill and Corporal Pacheco and the thousands of

other soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen of our All-Volunteer Force deserve no less.

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

Mr. President, for weeks, Americans have watched the debate about raising our Nation's debt ceiling. I know it is has been difficult and often frustrating to watch what is happening, but the discussion could not have been more important for the future of America. We have been talking, again, about whether we would increase America's borrowing limit.

In doing so, we have rightly focused on how to prevent a default on America's credit, but also, just as important, rather than just reflexively continuing to borrow money we do not have from Chinese bankers, how we are going to confront the fundamental behavior in Congress that has led us to this culture of borrowing and overspending.

I have said from the beginning of this debate that we owe it to the American people, and I owe it to my constituents in New Hampshire, to confront both issues--to avoid default and, finally, to

confront our debt once and for all, and to change the direction in which we are headed as a country.

To address only default and to continue to kick the can down the road on making the tough decisions to fundamentally change the path we are on will surely lead to a downgrade of our credit rating. It will sap our economic strength and will lead to the insolvency of the greatest country on Earth.

While I appreciate the difficult work done by the Speaker of the House and our Senate leadership in coming up with an agreement that avoids default, I am unable to support a bill that delivers the largest debt ceiling increase in the history of our Nation but does very little to confront the underlying problems that have brought us here--problems that have led us to over a $14 trillion debt and which will increase in the next 2 years to over $16 trillion in debt.

I have not come to this decision lightly. I have had countless meetings over the last months and weeks with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk about this issue and how we can confront this crisis now. I have said from the beginning we need fundamental changes in the way we do business in Washington, including budget reforms, enacting a responsible budget.

I am a member of the Senate Budget Committee--the newest member of that committee--and it has been terribly disappointing to me that the Senate hasn't allowed the Budget Committee to do its work and come up with a budget for the United States of America.

So we do need fundamental budget reforms. I have said we need major spending reductions, and we need to reform our entitlement programs. I cannot in good conscience agree to a deal that continues to perpetuate the culture of overspending and borrowing in Washington.

In coming to this decision, I have asked myself several questions: The first question I have asked is, Does this agreement significantly reduce spending? Unfortunately, the answer is no. While it claims to reduce the deficit by $917 billion over the next 10 years, only in Washington would this be called a spending reduction. Because of baseline budgeting, a reduction of $917 billion in the deficit, as it is claimed, is no reduction at all. Over the next 10 years, under this agreement, we will spend over $830 billion more in discretionary spending.

So there is no reduction in spending. If you just look at the reduction from what we will spend in fiscal year 2012, it is really only a $7 billion reduction in spending between what we will spend in 2011 and 2012. We borrow $4 billion a day to sustain our government. So the spending reductions between what we spend in 2011 to 2012 is not even 2 days of borrowing for the United States of America.

Many of the cuts are in the outyears. And you know what happens in Washington when the cuts are in the outyears. Unfortunately, our history has been that they do not get done. That is why I am concerned about even the $917 billion claim in reductions, which is not a reduction in spending.

I have also asked myself, Does this agreement in any way reduce the size of government? We know this government has continued to grow even as State governments and families have made the tough decisions to downsize, to reduce, to live within their means. This deal does not cut or end one government program.

In March, the GAO came out with a report that identified hundreds of duplicative programs that happen here in Washington where we could save billions of dollars. My colleague from Oklahoma, Dr. Tom Coburn, has done the hard work of identifying hundreds and hundreds of duplicative programs where we could save billions of dollars. Yet this agreement does not reduce the size of government at all or end one of those programs.

Does it avoid a downgrading of our credit? Unfortunately, I think this agreement will also lead us to a downgrade. And why does that matter? Because it will hurt the economic strength of America and our economic growth, our borrowing costs. It will hurt our job creators when now more than ever we need to create jobs in this country and put people to work. Yet our failure to get our fiscal house in order here in Washington is hurting the hard-working people in New Hampshire and America.

The credit rating agencies and even the President's own fiscal commission have said that the minimum amount of debt reduction that we need over the next decade is $4 trillion just to stabilize our debt and to ensure our AAA credit rating is not downgraded. But with this agreement, even if everything happens and this congressional committee does all of its work, we will only see a maximum reduction of $2.4 trillion. And that is assuming everything in those outyears gets done, which we do not always have a good history of here in Washington.

Finally, does it change the trajectory of where we are going with our debt to preserve our country? No. Under this agreement, we will continue to about $1 trillion a year to our debt--a debt that is already $14 trillion.

It does nothing to strengthen our entitlement programs. We know from the trustees of Medicare that program is going bankrupt in 2024. We know from Social Security that program is going to be bankrupt in 2036. Yet we have not taken on that fundamental problem in this agreement. How do we reform those programs to preserve them for Americans that are relying on them and to sustain them for future beneficiaries?

While I appreciate that we are beginning to change the discussion here in Washington, I cannot support this agreement. I appreciate that it is very important that we avoid default, but I know we are better than this. I know we can do more to make sure we preserve the greatest country on Earth. We need to take on the fundamental problems, the chronic overspending in Washington. We cannot continue to say that a reduction is a reduction when it is not, when we are continuing to spend more money, because at home people look at that and say: Give me a break. That is not how I do my family budget.

We have to tell the truth to the American people and make the hard decisions. I know we can come together and get something done that will fundamentally change the direction in which we are headed. That is why I am disappointed about this agreement, because it does not do that.

We must do more than avoid default. We must save our country for the sake of our children. I have often come to this floor and talked about the fact that I am the mother of two children.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

I am the mother of a 6-year-old and a 3-year-old. This discussion goes beyond those of us who are serving right here; it is about what kind of country are we going to leave for the next generation. And I know I will not look my children in the eye and have them say: Mom, what did you do about it?

We have to solve this crisis now. I know we can. I look forward to working with my colleagues on behalf of the people of New Hampshire, to really rolling up our sleeves, finally cutting spending, and saving the greatest country on Earth.

Mr. President, today I honor the memory of the late Douglas Gray, a former New Hampshire Superior Court justice and an extraordinary public servant who dedicated his life to serving the Granite State.

Originally from Portsmouth, Justice Gray moved at the age of seven to Rye, where he resided for the remainder of his life. He graduated from Portsmouth High School and served his country in the U.S. Army from 1951 to 1954. After graduating from the University of New Hampshire in 1959, he earned his juris doctor from Boston College Law School, and went on to pursue a successful career practicing law in Portsmouth. During 1973-1983, he served as part-time special justice in the New Hampshire District Court system.

In 1983, he was appointed by Governor John H. Sununu to serve as associate justice of the New Hampshire Superior Court, where he presided until 1998. He was then elected to serve as a senior justice and presided on a part-time basis until his retirement in 2003.

As a judge, Justice Gray possessed exceptional intelligence and a deep respect for upholding the rule of law. And as a prosecutor, I had the privilege of trying cases before him. In fact, I tried my first murder case before Justice Gray. He was tough, but always fair, and I know that I and many of my peers in the New Hampshire bar learned a great deal from him. I deeply admired his integrity and his principled dedication to the law.

With Justice Gray's passing, New Hampshire has lost a devoted public servant and Rye has lost a beloved member of the community. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Cornelia and his entire family. At this sad time, we celebrate his life--grateful to have known a person who exemplified the very best of New Hampshire's tradition of public service.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 575, which is at the desk.

Madam President, I have offered an amendment to H.R. 2055. It seeks to help to make sure our wounded warriors get the benefits of next-generation advanced prosthetics in a timely fashion.

This amendment would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a report within 90 days, identifying the bureaucratic hurdles and redtape we need to cut through to make sure the research that is being done and the next-generation advanced prosthetics that are being developed to help our wounded warriors will get to them as quickly as possible.

We have invested substantial taxpayer dollars, including through the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, or DARPA, in developing this great technology in advanced next-generation prosthetics.

Last week, I had the chance to go to Walter Reed Hospital and meet with some of our wounded warriors. They are absolutely amazing Americans, and what they have done for our country is incredible. We can never repay the sacrifices they have made. But the last thing they should have to put up with is waiting for years of delay through the FDA or other government agencies to make sure they can get the very best technology available for next-generation advanced prosthetics. That is why I offer this amendment.

I hope this amendment will be passed to make sure we can cut through the redtape, that the Veterans' Administration will identify any hurdles that are present, that we can get through those hurdles and get that technology to our wounded warriors as soon as possible, given what they have done for our country and continue to do in fighting on our behalf. They are heroes, and they deserve to not have to wait and wade through government bureaucracy.

I thank my colleague from South Dakota. This is such an important issue, as he has pointed out, and as his constituent has written him.

As a mother of two children, I am deeply concerned with what is going to happen to the next generation if we continue to kick this can down the road and if we don't use common sense to balance our budget.

I have heard from constituents in New Hampshire--and I am sure the Senator from South Dakota hears the same--that basically only in Washington would the notion of balancing your budget be called ``extreme.''

It is common sense that you can't spend more money than you have. We need to pass the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan, because it is a commonsense proposal to ensure that we don't continue along this cycle of continuing to increase our debt and not have a plan to pay our bills.

And borrowing money from China--that has to stop. When you think about all the money we have borrowed from a country such as China, which doesn't share our values--right now, there is no other plan that has been presented but the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan, which was just passed by the House. We can do this now and put our nation on a path to a balanced budget and make sure that the Senator's constituents--and I know he is a father as well--and our children don't bear the burden of our failure to make the tough decisions today. We owe it not only to everybody in our generation but to our children and our grandchildren.

I wanted to ask the Senator from South Dakota this: The cut, cap, and balance plan puts emphasis on cutting spending instead of raising taxes to bring down our deficit and our $14 trillion debt. Does he believe that is the right approach for America?

I thank my colleague. What I have heard from my constituents in New Hampshire--and we do have a requirement to balance our budget, and it is not easy to make those tough choices--is that they do not understand why in Washington there is controversy over the notion of balancing the budget because at home people are balancing their budgets. Families balance their budgets, and businesses balance their budgets.

I meet with businesspeople, and they look at me in disbelief and say: I don't understand why in Washington they don't look at what they have to spend and then stick within a strict budget. It really comes down to common sense.

One of the biggest issues I have heard about from my constituents is that they are concerned that it has been over 2 years--over 800 days-- since the Democrat-controlled Senate last passed a budget. The notion that we have been operating without a budget and running well over trillion-dollar deficits and haven't sat down and done the hard work of rolling up our sleeves, allowing the Budget Committee to do its work, astounds New Hampshire citizens because they understand that if we don't have a basic spending blueprint for our country, the end result is that we are going to continue to run up deficits and spend money we don't have, borrowing from countries such as China, which doesn't share our values.

One of the things that is very important about this cut, cap, and balance plan is that it cuts $111 billion in fiscal year 2012 and it places firm caps on future spending, contingent upon the House and Senate passing a balanced budget amendment, which is so important.

As we have talked about, let's let the States decide. Really, this is about sending it to the people of this country and allowing them to say whether we should balance our budget. I know what the answer will be in New Hampshire. They will say: Yes, please, balance the budget.

If you look at where we are, as Senator Thune has mentioned, with respect to spending in terms of the size of our economy, we are over 24 percent of our GDP that we are spending right now--well above our historical level, well above the amount of money we are bringing in. Yet the only fiscal plan the President brought forward would massively increase our debt over the next decade, so much so that not even one Member of his own party in the Senate voted for that budget.

So when we talk about a real plan to get America back on track, this cut, cap, and balance plan has a very commonsense approach. We will cut spending right away, put together a responsible fiscal plan for America, and then make sure we have those caps in place so we don't continue to spend close to 24, 25 percent of our GDP. I mean, the President has increased our debt 35 percent since he has been in office.

Finally, let's put to the States the question of whether they think it makes sense to balance our budget. I think we know what the answer will be. They will say: Yes, please balance your budget, as we have to do at home, as we do in State government.

The other issue we are facing right now is, of course, what the rating agencies have said about our failure to handle this fiscal crisis. We have heard about the concerns that if we do not come up with a credible plan that really cuts spending right now, our credit ratings will be threatened. That will further impact our economy, and that is why we can't continue to put off the tough decisions. This cut, cap, and balance plan will put forward $6 trillion of cuts over the next decade. That will help make sure we preserve our credit ratings for this country. It will make sure we focus on real economic growth that get people back to work.

If we raise taxes the way CBO has suggested based on the questions from Senator Gregg and Congressman Ryan, we know that is going to hurt the American taxpayer. It is going to hurt job creators in this country.

I also happen to come from a small business family. I know the impact of raising taxes in the way that was described. If we have to raise taxes to address the spending problem we have in Washington, it is going to hurt our small businesses--those who create the jobs in this country--and that is the last thing we should be doing when we have over a 9-percent unemployment rate.

So I hope my colleagues will pass the cut, cap, and balance plan right away. The House has passed it, and we can raise the debt ceiling with a responsible plan to cut spending right away, impose spending caps, and send a balanced budget amendment to the States.

I would ask my colleague from South Dakota, when the Senator was first elected, before he served in the Senate, I know he had a career in the House of Representatives and served the people of South Dakota there. There was a vote on the balanced budget amendment at the time in the Senate, and it only failed by one vote. What does the Senator believe our current fiscal situation would be had the balanced budget amendment passed the Senate at that time?

I thank my colleague from South Dakota. And I, too, hope we will have bipartisan support for this cut, cap, and balance plan. It is so critical, and as the President's own fiscal commission said:

Our challenge is clear and inescapable. America cannot be

great if we go broke. Our businesses will not be able to grow

and create jobs and our workers will not be able to compete

successfully for the jobs of the future without a plan to get

this crushing debt burden off our backs.

Well, the cut, cap, and balance plan will help get this crushing debt burden off our backs to allow our job creators to actually create jobs.

Also, when we think about starting from where we began this discussion, our children, we have to act now. I don't want my two children looking at me one day in the future and saying: Mom, what did you do about the fiscal crisis that everybody saw coming? Right now in the Senate, we can come together around this cut, cap, and balance plan. Once and for all, let's commit to passing a balanced budget amendment. Let's send that question to the States. Let's let the people of this country weigh in, because we know they will weigh in with common sense because they do it at the State level, they do it at a family level, they do it in their small businesses.

So I, too, hope we will work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle; that we will get this cut, cap, and balance plan passed. I look forward to working with all the Senators in this Chamber, and particularly the Senator from South Dakota who, I know, has been such an advocate and such a strong fiscal conservative, wanting to preserve our country and the greatness of America to make sure we get this plan passed now.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleague Senator Rubio for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, it is an honor to be here with my esteemed colleague from Florida, Senator Marco Rubio. My husband Joe and I are blessed to be the parents of two wonderful children, our daughter Kate, who is 6 years old, and our son Jacob, who is 3 years old.

This Fourth of July we walked together as a family in the parade in Wolfeboro, NH. As I watched my children in the parade hand out candy to other New Hampshire children while they were standing with their parents, it reminded me again of why I am here and how concerned I am about the future of our country for Kate and Jacob and for all of our children.

As parents, we all want to provide our children with a brighter and at least the same if not greater opportunities we have all had in the greatest country on Earth. That is the American dream, that a young woman like me from a middle-class family can have the opportunity to serve in this Chamber; that someone like Senator Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, could serve as a Senator from Florida, a leader of our great country who has come here to address our challenges.

I am fearful that we are the first generation that will not pass on the American dream to the next generation. With the accumulation of $14 trillion in debt, we are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to fund our government. Half of our debt we have borrowed from other countries, including the country of China, a country that does not share our values. I am concerned with the amount of debt we have accumulated, that if we do not address this debt crisis right here and now, we are ensuring our children will have less opportunities than we have all had.

We have seen what is happening in Greece. If we do not address our debt, with real, substantive legislative proposals, ideas we have already proposed in this Chamber, Members of both side of the aisle-- the balanced budget amendment, spending cap legislation, how about a real budget resolution that reduces spending and puts forth a responsible fiscal plan for this country--we will be setting up our children to pay for our failure to act today with either massive tax increases or the value of our dollar will be diminished and everything they own will be worth less and everything that we own, and it will diminish their economic opportunities in this great country.

I know Senator Rubio is the father of four young children. What is it the Senator is most concerned about with respect to the future of our great country?

Mr. President, I could not agree more with what my colleague from Florida has said, that we need to create a positive climate to create jobs. But one thing we do know is that does not happen by more spending in Washington. The recent report that came out about the President's stimulus package has shown that it cost $278,000 per job created by that stimulus package. Yet we had to borrow so much money, nearly $1 trillion to create a limited number of jobs that cost us $278,000 a job.

I do come from a small business family. My husband started a landscaping and snow-plowing business. I worked with him to start that business. New Hampshire is a small business State. As I campaigned up and down our State, I talked to so many small business owners. I never had a small business owner tell me they were being taxed too little, please tax me more.

What I did hear was too many burdensome regulations from Washington

were coming down and making it difficult for our small businesses to thrive and grow. Frankly, some of the taxes coming down from Washington were making it difficult. In the health care bill, there was a tax on medical device companies. New Hampshire has nearly 50 of those companies. And what I heard from those companies--and I have heard that even more recently--is the tax in that health care bill on medical device companies is going to take away significant amounts of their research and development budget to create new products that will improve the quality of our health care and save lives.

So with the actions we are taking in Washington, we need to create a positive climate for our small businesses, not thinking that we create the jobs here in Washington. We know that it is those small businesses and the hard-working entrepreneurs and those who have a great idea in this country in the private sector who create those jobs. They do not need more taxes and burdens from Washington. What we need to do is frankly get out of their way and allow them to thrive and grow and to create jobs for all of our children going forward.

I do not know if the Senator heard from businesses in Florida about the regulatory concerns and burdens from Washington hurting economic growth in the private sector.

I thank Senator Rubio for his leadership on this issue and for the important issues he has raised today because he is absolutely right that class warfare is unproductive.

The proposals the President has made are not serious in terms of how much revenue they would even address--not even 10 days' of our debt. Unfortunately, right now, the leader of the Senate has brought forward a resolution, a nonbinding sense of the Senate, that does nothing to address the spending in Washington, and we are spending over 24 percent of our GDP, or our economy, right now. Historically, we have spent about 20 percent of our GDP. Our spending is way out of line from where we have been over the 40-year historical level. Common sense tells us, why not a balanced budget amendment? Why aren't we addressing that instead of a nonbinding resolution that, again, will have no effect-- will not reduce our deficit, will not help create any jobs, and will not help our economy thrive? We should be addressing real legislation-- a balanced budget amendment.

I could not agree more with my colleague from Florida about living within our means. Families sit around their kitchen tables and make the tough decisions. They see the revenue coming in and the expenditures going out. Washington should do the same. Spending caps will ensure that we put handcuffs on Congress to make sure we are not spending this drastic 24 percent of our GDP and putting ourselves on a more responsible spending path going forward, and a budget resolution.

It has been nearly 2 years since the Senate has passed a budget. No business would run without a budget. Families make budgets. Here in the Senate, what we should be bringing to the floor is a real budget resolution that the parties can debate to put ourselves on a responsible fiscal path going forward rather than voting on a sense of the Senate that will, again, not have any impact and the full force of law.

With this August 2 deadline, it is time for real legislative proposals and solutions. We have put some ideas out there--a balanced budget amendment, a spending cap amendment, a real budget resolution. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will come forward so we can work on this fiscal crisis here and now so that my children and Senator Rubio's children and all of our children and grandchildren will have greater opportunities in the greatest country on Earth.

I thank my colleagues. I think those who are watching this will see we are new Senators back here in the back corner of the Senate. As a new Member of this Chamber, I am deeply disappointed by the lack of work that we have been doing in the Senate. The majority leader has put us in a position where we haven't been focusing on the fiscal crisis that is facing our Nation right now, when we look at the fact it has been 792 days since we have had a budget.

I was so excited as a new member of the Budget Committee to roll up my sleeves and get together and put out a responsible blueprint for this country. Unfortunately, we were told by the majority leader that would be foolish--to put together a responsible blueprint for this country and to do the work of the Budget Committee.

One of the reasons I came to the Senate is I am tired of business as usual. I know my freshman colleagues back here share that. I am the mother of two children--I know the President mentioned his children yesterday--but if we care about our children and the future of this country, we owe it to our children to not continue to kick the can down the road. We should be in the Senate today and next week talking about how we are going to put together a blueprint that makes sure that we do not continue to borrow from countries such as China; that we do not continue to enslave our children with the debt this country is accumulating.

We know if we do not address this, the greatest country in the world will go bankrupt. I, for one, want to follow through on the American promise that we have always made to the next generation, which is that we will leave them with a better country. That is so threatened right now with what is happening in Washington.

I share with my colleague, Senator Johnson, the belief we should be addressing nothing next week but spending and debt. We have the debt ceiling vote coming up, so why aren't we rolling up our sleeves right now, working on a solution with real spending reforms and putting those handcuffs on Congress that we know we need, such as a balanced budget amendment, spending caps, and a budget for our country that reduces spending so we don't have to have this continuing resolution situation.

We do not have a tax problem in this country, we have a spending problem. We need to create a positive climate for our private sector and do the hard work in Washington--the same way our families do--and live within our means. So I think next week we should be doing the work that needs to be done.

Mr. President, you called on us yesterday to work. We are here working. The only financial and fiscal blueprint that you have offered--your budget for 2012--did not even get one vote from a member of your party in this Chamber. This budget blueprint would have added another $14 trillion to our debt.

So I say to our President: We are willing to roll up our sleeves and get to work with you to avert this looming fiscal crisis, but where is your plan that will reduce spending and get us on a responsible fiscal path to preserving the greatest country in the world?

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

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the memory of Governor Walter Peterson--a great New Hampshire citizen who represented the very best of the Granite State's independent spirit.

Governor Peterson came from what is well-known as the ``greatest generation,'' and he more than lived up to that label. A veteran of World War II, he committed his life to public service and civic engagement, leaving behind a legacy of civility, decency, and integrity in politics.

Following his graduation from Dartmouth College, Governor Peterson settled in Peterborough, NH, becoming a lifelong figure in the Monadnock region. A small businessman, he went on to serve in New Hampshire's citizen legislature and rose to the position of speaker of the house. In 1968, New Hampshire voters elected him as the State's Governor, a position he held for two terms.

Governor Peterson represented a special breed of politician--someone who could disagree without being disagreeable. A strong leader, he had the courage of his convictions. He believed it was more important to stand firm for what he believed was right for New Hampshire rather than worry about being reelected. That principled approach and inherent goodness secured his place in New Hampshire history as a deeply respected statesman.

Outside of public life, Governor Peterson was the beloved patriarch of his family. Together with his wife Dorothy, to whom he was married for over 60 years, they had two children, Meg and Andy. The Peterson family is well known in the Monadnock region because of their strong commitment and dedication to the community. Andy Peterson followed in his father's footsteps and served in our State legislature with distinction.

During my visits to Peterborough--the idyllic New Hampshire town Governor Peterson lived in and loved--I always knew he would extend a warm welcome to me. A steadfast source of Yankee wisdom, I came to cherish Governor Peterson's friendship as much as his keen insight into the people of New Hampshire.

After leaving statewide office, Governor Peterson took his special brand of leadership to academia, serving as a college president and as a trustee of the university system of New Hampshire. In those roles, he worked to build institutions of higher learning that empowered students to take full advantage of the opportunities our great country provides, believing in the transformative power of education.

With Governor Peterson's passing, New Hampshire citizens have lost a wonderful, true, and loyal friend. At this sad time, we celebrate his life, grateful to have known a leader who embodied the very best of public service.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize and congratulate Grace S. Mattern for her 30 years of service on behalf of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.

Since its inception, the coalition has become a leader in the struggle for victims', women's, and children's rights. Over the past quarter century, Grace has shaped the way domestic violence and sexual assault is understood and responded to in New Hampshire. Under Grace's leadership, the coalition has developed a nationally recognized model for protocols, state law, and health care initiatives. On the local level, there has been no victim-centered legislation in which Grace has not played a major part.

One of Grace's strongest attributes is her ability to work with people and facilitate meetings in a productive way. She has worked tirelessly to encourage everyone to work together to strengthen efforts to end domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Her work includes participation in many boards and commissions both nationally and locally.

Grace has been involved in various projects that involve groundbreaking work not only for New Hampshire but also for the country. Because of her leadership in 1997, the coalition, in conjunction with the State, was selected

by the Family Violence Prevention Fund to establish a partnership to improve the health care system's response to domestic violence, called the National Health Initiative. New Hampshire was one of only 10 States in the Nation to participate in this program and the only State in New England. To this day, Grace continues to work with the medical community to educate physicians on the impact of trauma from domestic and sexual violence.

In 1999, the coalition successfully applied to be one of six sites in the country selected for what is known as the Greenbook Project. Grafton County was selected and funded as a national demonstration site for improving collaboration between domestic violence organizations, courts, and child protective services in families where there is a co- occurrence of domestic violence, child abuse, and neglect. New Hampshire was the only site selected in the eastern United States. This project has led to more collaborative efforts not only in Grafton County but across New Hampshire.

Grace was highly involved in the creation of one of the first AmeriCorps programs in the State. Named the AmeriCorps Victim Assistance Program, it was a ``first in the Nation'' model that she started with representatives from the New Hampshire Department of Justice and the State's court system, and is now in its 11th year. The program recruits and trains members to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking at crisis centers, police departments, prosecutors' offices, the New Hampshire Department of Justice, and on college and university campuses throughout the State.

As Grace retires, I commend her efforts and congratulate her for all of the accomplishments of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing her 30 years of service on behalf of the people of New Hampshire.