Floor Statements

Mr. President, I would like in this context to focus on the economic policy, to look at where we are right now, the state of the economic union and the State of Illinois.

If we look at basic numbers we see we will take in about $2.1 trillion in tax revenue, but our government is currently projected to spend $3.4 trillion in tax revenue, yielding a deficit of approximately $1.3 trillion. We will have to borrow from the American people, from China, and other foreign powers.

Total unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government are $61 trillion, yielding a debt of $196,000 per American, currently. When we look at economic growth and the way to expand the available pie for the United States, our economy last year grew at a 2.8-percent rate. China, on the other hand, grew at 10.3 percent, and Libya--currently under attack by NATO--grew at 4.2 percent. In fact, quiz question: Which economy grew more last year, the United States or Iran? The answer: The Iranian economy grew at a faster rate than the United States.

The situation probably is even more bleak in the State of Illinois. For the State of Illinois, we are going to take in about $27 billion in revenue, spending $33 billion, for a $5.8 billion gap. This is for a State whose credit rating is deteriorating quite rapidly, having not funded its pensions to a greater degree than almost any other State, the unfunded liability of the State of Illinois of $62 billion for a per-citizen debt on top of the Federal debt of $4,800.

When we look at our State and its economic growth, the State of Illinois is at just 1.9 percent growth. Other States, Wisconsin, even with its highly controversial Governor now rapidly improving its business climate at 2.5 percent; the State rated No. 1 for creating jobs in America, 2.8 percent, and the State that is on fire, the State of Indiana at 4.6 percent. This is clearly a sign that things are going well in Indiana, things are going well in China, things are even going better in Libya than in the United States, and it shows that we need to change course for our country economically, to back the amendment of the Senator that she has here, and to make sure we can lay out better, more pro-productive policies like the small business bill of rights that represents 10 new policies to accelerate economic growth.

On behalf of that entity, which represents half of all the jobs in the United States, and my own State--these are private sector jobs. They are sustainable. They do not depend on a failed stimulus which is now running out of gas--given the records, I think we can see it is clear we ought to go back to economic fundamentals to correct the system and look clearly at the state of economics where we are now.

With that, I yield to the Senator from Maine and thank her for the time.

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

Mr. President, last week, I spoke on the floor regarding the resignation of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who is managing director of the International Monetary Fund, due to the serious criminal charges he is now facing in New York.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn has since resigned, but it appears he will now receive at least a $250,000 taxpayer-funded severance pay package from the IMF and may be eligible for further undisclosed amounts in annual IMF retirement benefits.

Since the United States is the largest contributor to the IMF, we now face the potential share scenario where the American taxpayer is partly underwriting severance payments and retirement packages to a man who is pending a criminal conviction as a felon.

This is clearly unacceptable, and it is my hope that the U.S. executive director to the IMF, Meg Lundsager, advocates that no future benefits pass to Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, if he is convicted of the crimes with which he is charged.

As you know, the IMF is spearheading efforts to manage a very wide and deep European debt crisis. Despite my reservations about U.S. taxpayer bailouts for Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, the institution does play a very critical role in financial leadership. I think it needs to set an example, especially with regard to its now-disgraced leader.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn has failed to live up to the expectations of his institution and what the American taxpayers support.

State Bailouts

Mr. President, the U.S. Treasury is scheduled to borrow over $1.4 trillion this year, and we have a scheduled interest payment of over $220 billion. We will pay more in interest this year than we do for the cost of the U.S. Army. I am very concerned about this situation and also an underreported financial situation developing in American States. The situations in my home State of Illinois and the State of California are the most dire. I would regret any attempt by these States to seek a Federal bailout. To defend the full faith and credit of the United States, I think we should move forward with a resolution that I introduced with a number of other Senators, S. Res. 188, that expresses the sense of the Senate that we should have no Federal bailout for the States.

This is an issue that has concerned the Senate once before. In the 1840s, we faced a funding crisis of the States. The Senate wisely advised then-Secretary of the Treasury Daniel Webster to seek or report on any discussions that he might have had that could have led to guaranteeing State debt. It was the Senate's express resolution that prevented Treasury Secretary Webster from bailing out the State's

debt. The crisis at the time was even reflected in Charles Dickens' famous book ``A Christmas Carol,'' in which Scrooge was described as someone who was less than wealthy because he had overinvested in what were called United States sovereigns. In fact, the phrase in the ``Christmas Carol'' is ``not worth a United States sovereign'' because of the spend-thrift policies of many State governments at the time.

The Senate at that time took the correct action to prevent the spend- thrift actions of several States from contaminating and ruining the credit rating of the United States itself.

Our credit rating is already under stress with reports, especially by Standard & Poors, that we may face a loss in the AAA credit rating invented to symbolize the strength of the United States if we don't change the spending course soon. A way to accelerate the loss of a AAA credit rating is to guarantee or somehow bail out spend-thrift States such as Illinois or California.

In Illinois, we have a very courageous State treasurer who just took office and made a clear statement. Treasurer Dan Rutherford has told the leaders of my own State they need to stop borrowing, they need to stop spending. He is seeking no Federal bailout for his State. The State situation is quite dire.

By one estimate, the revenues and pensions of the State of Illinois are the worst funded in America. Less than 40 percent of the pensions, by one estimate, have been funded. With this type of track record, you could see a situation in which California or Illinois, in a crisis, would seek a bailout from the Senate and from the House. I think we should repeat the wise precedent set in the 1840s, the advice we sent to Treasury Secretary Daniel Webster to set a clear marker for our own Treasury Secretary to make sure there is no bailout for the States. To protect our credit rating, I think this action is necessary, especially to reassure the credit rating agencies.

What would happen if we don't? Could we provide temporary benefits to Illinois and California? We could. Could we underwrite their policies of spend-thrift ways? We could. Would we accelerate a loss of the AAA credit rating of the United States? We could. We are already seeing an example of what happens when you drive your national economy off a cliff. Many of us originally hailed from our long-time ancestors who passed from Ireland, and recently the Irish Government finances collapsed as they lost their credit rating. Because interest rates spiked in that country so fast, 53 percent of mortgages in Ireland were foreclosed in a short space of time after the loss of their credit rating.

We need to act to protect the people of the United States from such an economic fate. That is why we need to say no to any State bailouts, why we need to cut spending in Washington, and why we need to make sure that at all costs we defend the credit rating of the United States. It is our sacred duty to make sure that what is befalling the people of Greece and the people of Portugal and the people of Ireland, being misruled by governments that said yes to every special interest spending idea and no to their economic future, does not infect the credit rating of the United States.

That is why this resolution is so needed, and that is why I am so proud to submit it today in the full and complete historic financial tradition of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise to commend the work of our Navy operating off the coast of Somalia.

Over the weekend, the USS Stephen W. Groves encountered a pirate mothership, a captured Taiwanese fishing vessel, the Jih Chun Tsai. The pirates aboard exchanged fire with the Stephen W. Groves. Once the firefight ended, a boarding party found that the Taiwanese captain had been murdered along with three pirates. The crew of

the Groves captured 19 surviving pirates, but, unfortunately, by much higher command, was instructed to return them directly to Somalia.

I recently visited the Groves, shortly after a previous engagement with the Jih Chun Tsai in April. I, personally, commend CDR Matthew Rick and his crew aboard the Stephen W. Groves for the work they have done fighting piracy in the Gulf of Aden. Their actions over the weekend eliminated the pirate threat of one mothership, but, unfortunately, there are many more to take out.

Also, on Monday, a helicopter from the USS Bulkeley responded to a distress call from the M/V Artemis Glory, a German-owned crude carrier. The helicopter crew from the Bulkeley saw the pirates firing on the merchant ship and returned fire, sinking the skiff and killing the four pirates aboard.

Also, on Monday, the USS Bainbridge responded to a distress call from a cargo carrier, the MSC Ayala. After the crew of the Ayala repelled a pirate attack, the Bainbridge arrived and located the mothership responsible for the attack. The crew made contact with the pirates, who ultimately agreed to abandon the mothership they had hijacked just 4 days before. Ironically, the skiff the pirates tried to flee in sank, and the pirates were rescued by the Bainbridge.

I commend the men and women serving on the USS Stephen W. Groves, the USS Bulkeley, and the USS Bainbridge for jobs very well done. My hope in the future is that we can have far more robust rules of engagement, empowering Commander Rick and his fellow commanders to eliminate the threat of piracy.

Of course, this mission would be in the highest traditions of the U.S. Navy and in the tradition of the Jefferson administration, which so ably handled this threat when it emerged in the early part of the 19th century. My only hope is that, in the coming administration review by Secretary of State Clinton, she adopts a more Jeffersonian policy with regard to this threat, so the sealanes, which control 70 percent of the world's supply of oil, and so the ransoms, one-third of which are now being paid to terrorists who operate the largest terror training camps on Earth, can be eliminated.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Menendez, Lautenberg and Durbin in introducing the State Ethics Law Protection Act. This legislation would ensure that States are allowed to pass meaningful ethics reform laws without being penalized by the Federal government.

Current law allows the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, to withhold Federal highway funds from States that ban pay-to-play contracting. At least 9 States and 60 cities have enacted anti pay-to- play laws. These laws vary widely, but they generally limit political contributions from entities doing business with the state. The FHWA claims that these laws could reduce the number of potential bidders, thus violating an unrestricted bidding requirement set forth in Federal law. FHWA has selectively threatened to withhold money to certain States. In my home State of Illinois, the State legislature was forced to change its pay-to-play law just days after our former governor was indicted for allegedly engaging in numerous pay-to-play schemes. Illinois was forced to create a giant loophole in the ethics law so as not to lose out on millions in Federal transportation funds.

States have the right to ensure their contracting processes adhere to the highest ethical standards and offer the best protection to the taxpayers. Selected Federal intervention is an unwarranted and unhelpful power grab by Federal regulators. Pay-to-play laws are designed to enhance, not undermine, competitive bidding. They are designed to ensure that the competitive bidding process is open and fair, not motivated by political considerations.

Our legislation would allow States to pass ethics laws that are in their best interests, without fear of Federal retaliation, by amending FHWA's contracting requirements to explicitly provide that no State or locality shall be considered in violation of the competitive bidding requirements based on political contributions. The legislation does not prescribe any new requirements for states, nor does it advocate for the passage of any single ethics law. The bill simply allows States to enact meaningful anti-corruption laws if they choose to do so. As Federal budgets tighten in these challenging economic times, it is imperative that we not hamstring States even further by denying them Federal funds for trying to limit public corruption.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Public Officials Accountability Act, to ensure that our elected leaders cannot use their office for their own personal benefit. Public corruption has turned the ``Land of Honest Abe'' into the ``Land of Political Corruption.'' Illinois is the 6th most corrupt state in the Union, based on the number of public corruption convictions over the last decade. If just the northern district of Illinois were a state, it would have had the 7th highest number of public corruption convictions in the country in 2009. Illinois taxpayers pay the price for this in the form of a hidden public corruption tax. We need to make sure our laws help Federal prosecutors crack down on public corruption and restore integrity to Illinois. One such tool is the honest services law.

For the past 30 years, the Department of Justice has fought public corruption by convicting scores of public officials who deny citizens the right to ``honest services.'' We are all too familiar with politicians failing to perform their public duties honestly in Illinois.

The most famous Illinois politicians to be convicted of honest services fraud include former Governor Otto Kerner, late Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, former city of Chicago official Robert Sorich, and former Governor George Ryan. William Jefferson and Congressman Bob Ney are a few notable national figures to be convicted of this crime.

Back in Illinois, our former governor Rod Blagojevich is currently on trial after having turned Illinois into a corrupt political circus and a national joke. A number of charges in his original indictment were based on honest services fraud, including those related to his alleged scheme to sell President Obama's U.S. Senate seat for his own personal gain.

Unfortunately, last year the Supreme court drastically narrowed the scope of the honest services law in the famous 2010 Enron decision, Skilling v. U.S. The Court struck down a significant portion of the law because it was unconstitutionally vague. As a result of the Supreme Court review, U.S. prosecutors reindicted Blagojevich, leaving out all honest services charges so as not to complicate the case. Blagojevich later was convicted on just one charge.

The Blagojevich case was not the only one affected by the decision. According to the Wall Street Journal, ``In 2008 and 2009, the government brought honest services fraud charges in more than 100 cases a year,'' but in 2010 ``new prosecutions using the statute slowed to a trickle'' due to the Supreme Court review of the issue.

In order to continue fighting public corruption effectively, the Department of Justice asked Congress to enact a clear and specific honest services law to withstand any constitutional review. Our bill, the Public Officials Accountability Act, would do just that. It would very clearly reinstate the portion of the law the Supreme Court struck down in terms that remove all ambiguity. The Public Officials Accountability Act would restore one of prosecutors' most important tools and decades of congressional intent to ensure elected leaders cannot use their office to further their own careers or pocketbooks.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Menendez, Lautenberg and Durbin in introducing the State Ethics Law Protection Act. This legislation would ensure that States are allowed to pass meaningful ethics reform laws without being penalized by the Federal government.

Current law allows the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, to withhold Federal highway funds from States that ban pay-to-play contracting. At least 9 States and 60 cities have enacted anti pay-to- play laws. These laws vary widely, but they generally limit political contributions from entities doing business with the state. The FHWA claims that these laws could reduce the number of potential bidders, thus violating an unrestricted bidding requirement set forth in Federal law. FHWA has selectively threatened to withhold money to certain States. In my home State of Illinois, the State legislature was forced to change its pay-to-play law just days after our former governor was indicted for allegedly engaging in numerous pay-to-play schemes. Illinois was forced to create a giant loophole in the ethics law so as not to lose out on millions in Federal transportation funds.

States have the right to ensure their contracting processes adhere to the highest ethical standards and offer the best protection to the taxpayers. Selected Federal intervention is an unwarranted and unhelpful power grab by Federal regulators. Pay-to-play laws are designed to enhance, not undermine, competitive bidding. They are designed to ensure that the competitive bidding process is open and fair, not motivated by political considerations.

Our legislation would allow States to pass ethics laws that are in their best interests, without fear of Federal retaliation, by amending FHWA's contracting requirements to explicitly provide that no State or locality shall be considered in violation of the competitive bidding requirements based on political contributions. The legislation does not prescribe any new requirements for states, nor does it advocate for the passage of any single ethics law. The bill simply allows States to enact meaningful anti-corruption laws if they choose to do so. As Federal budgets tighten in these challenging economic times, it is imperative that we not hamstring States even further by denying them Federal funds for trying to limit public corruption.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Public Officials Accountability Act, to ensure that our elected leaders cannot use their office for their own personal benefit. Public corruption has turned the ``Land of Honest Abe'' into the ``Land of Political Corruption.'' Illinois is the 6th most corrupt state in the Union, based on the number of public corruption convictions over the last decade. If just the northern district of Illinois were a state, it would have had the 7th highest number of public corruption convictions in the country in 2009. Illinois taxpayers pay the price for this in the form of a hidden public corruption tax. We need to make sure our laws help Federal prosecutors crack down on public corruption and restore integrity to Illinois. One such tool is the honest services law.

For the past 30 years, the Department of Justice has fought public corruption by convicting scores of public officials who deny citizens the right to ``honest services.'' We are all too familiar with politicians failing to perform their public duties honestly in Illinois.

The most famous Illinois politicians to be convicted of honest services fraud include former Governor Otto Kerner, late Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, former city of Chicago official Robert Sorich, and former Governor George Ryan. William Jefferson and Congressman Bob Ney are a few notable national figures to be convicted of this crime.

Back in Illinois, our former governor Rod Blagojevich is currently on trial after having turned Illinois into a corrupt political circus and a national joke. A number of charges in his original indictment were based on honest services fraud, including those related to his alleged scheme to sell President Obama's U.S. Senate seat for his own personal gain.

Unfortunately, last year the Supreme court drastically narrowed the scope of the honest services law in the famous 2010 Enron decision, Skilling v. U.S. The Court struck down a significant portion of the law because it was unconstitutionally vague. As a result of the Supreme Court review, U.S. prosecutors reindicted Blagojevich, leaving out all honest services charges so as not to complicate the case. Blagojevich later was convicted on just one charge.

The Blagojevich case was not the only one affected by the decision. According to the Wall Street Journal, ``In 2008 and 2009, the government brought honest services fraud charges in more than 100 cases a year,'' but in 2010 ``new prosecutions using the statute slowed to a trickle'' due to the Supreme Court review of the issue.

In order to continue fighting public corruption effectively, the Department of Justice asked Congress to enact a clear and specific honest services law to withstand any constitutional review. Our bill, the Public Officials Accountability Act, would do just that. It would very clearly reinstate the portion of the law the Supreme Court struck down in terms that remove all ambiguity. The Public Officials Accountability Act would restore one of prosecutors' most important tools and decades of congressional intent to ensure elected leaders cannot use their office to further their own careers or pocketbooks.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, more than 2 months ago, a popular uprising in Egypt swept President Hosni Mubarak from power after 30 years in office. The Egyptian military is now charged with reforming that country's political system in preparation for parliamentary and Presidential elections.

History teaches us this sort of transition happens in three phases, not two. First, the dictator falls. Next follows a weak interim government. Only then does a final permanent government enter the scene.

We remember the French Revolution with the fall of Louis XVI, then the hopefulness of the French First Republic, and then finally the rise of Napoleon.

We remember the October Revolution--first the fall of the czar, then the hopefulness of the interim Kerensky government, and finally the rise of the Soviet Union. Most recently we remember Iran--first the fall of the shah, then the hopefulness of the interim Bakhtiar government, and finally the rise of Khomeini.

Today we are watching this sequence play out in Egypt. First Mubarak fell, then came the jubilation of Tahrir Square and the hopefulness of an interim military government, and now we are left to wonder what act 3 will bring.

Will Egypt remain a strong U.S. ally in the region; will it uphold the Camp David peace treaty with Israel; will it commit to the rule of law and human rights at home; or will Egypt fall into the hands of the radical Muslim Brotherhood; will it drift toward Iran and embrace the enemies of Israel?

Unfortunately, recent developments indicate Egypt is moving in the wrong direction. The Muslim Brotherhood is gaining additional influence and may soon gain significant legislative power.

According to a poll released on April 25 by the Pew Research Center, 78 percent of Egyptians hold a favorable view of the Muslim Brotherhood--and that is better than the youth-led ``April 6 Movement'' that removed Mubarak from power. In September's planned elections, the Muslim Brotherhood plans to contest anywhere between 30 to 50 percent of all parliamentary seats.

Meanwhile, Egypt's foreign policy is shifting away from the United States and our allies and toward the Islamic Republic of Iran and its terrorist proxies. On April 18, Iran announced the appointment of the country's first ambassador to Egypt in 30 years. On April 27, Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil Elaraby said he will meet with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, in Indonesia on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit. The two officials will discuss next steps for the Iranian-Egyptian relationship. On May 3, Iran's Foreign Minister announced he would send his deputy to visit Egypt in the coming days.

Egyptian authorities helped negotiate the recent reconciliation agreement between the terrorist movement Hamas and Fatah--a major setback to Israeli-Palestinian peace. When asked to comment on Hamas being a terrorist organization, Egypt's Foreign Minister said:

[We must] allow someone who is fighting for a cause to see

the light of day at the end of the tunnel and enter into

peace.

On March 28, Hamas submitted a request to the Egyptian Government to

reopen its Embassy in the Gaza Strip. On April 28, Egypt's Foreign Minister announced plans to reopen the Rafah border with Hamas on a permanent basis--a potential boon to the Hamas terrorist organization. On April 30, Al Hayat reported that Hamas would be relocating its offices from Damascus--sending the terrorist group's No. 2 man, Musa Abu Marzouk, to Egypt.

Meanwhile, Egypt's commitment to democracy and human rights has suffered a serious setback following recent attacks on the country's Coptic Christian community that left scores dead and hundreds more injured. This follows the interim government's move to dismiss the Coptic governor of the city of Quena only days after his appointment-- caving to mass demonstrations organized by the Muslim Brotherhood.

As one Coptic bishop told AFP:

They are led by Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood, and

they are chanting: ``We won't leave until the Christians

leave.''

Finally, on March 28, Dr. Maikel Nabil Sanad, a 25-year-old blogger, was arrested for ``insulting the military,'' and ``disturbing public security'' after posting comments on his blog that were critical of the military's role in the protests. This arrest clearly violated the International Covenant on International and Political Rights and the new government's commitment to the fundamental freedoms of its people. If Egyptians could freely express their views in Tahrir Square, they should have the freedom to express their views online.

Mr. President, the trajectory of Egypt's revolution now faces two distinct scenarios: It could become a secular American ally that respects the rule of law, diversity, and a peace treaty with Israel; or it could become a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled ally of Iran that embraces terrorist groups such as Hamas, persecutes its own religious minorities, and rejects peace with Israel.

We must do everything in our power to support the secular forces of Egypt or face the prospect of a strategic setback on the scale of Iran in 1979, laying the foundation for potentially yet another war in the Middle East.

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

Mr. President, I note that under the Blunt legislation, we would correct a growing problem in the United States with gas prices. Right now, for example, in the Chicagoland area, gas prices total about $4.14 a gallon. I am sure in Missouri it is probably quite high.

This map shows that by Federal regulation the Federal Government has divided the national gasoline market into 17 separate submarkets. These 17 submarkets all have their unique recipe of gasoline. By Federal regulation, one cannot use gasoline that was sold in Chicagoland, which under this chart is the Chicago and Milwaukee RFG ethanol standard, in the St. Louis area, the SRFG standard with ethanol. By creating small, tiny monopolies, we create higher prices for the American people. I think that is why the Blunt legislation is necessary.

The unhighlighted areas are where regular gasoline is sold. The highlighted areas are where these little gasoline monopolies, by Federal regulation, have been created. What happens if another hurricane hits the gulf? If this area was lacking its specific kind of gasoline under current regulations, it could not borrow gasoline from Missouri or Chicagoland or anywhere else. So we have created an incredible price rigidity in the system. Long term, I think we should move the country to one clean burning fuel. But the one thing we should not do is have 17 different submarkets, all now with the ability to charge the American driving public much higher prices than would otherwise be the case.

I commend the Senator. This is exactly why we need the Blunt legislation. The Blunt amendment should pass to address this problem, one of the reasons gasoline costs too much in the United States.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak out of turn as in morning business.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last week in Chicago, we announced tax freedom day--the day that marks the time when Illinois residents have paid their Federal and State tax burdens. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that determines tax freedom day, found that this year Americans will pay more on their tax burden than they do on food, shelter, and clothing combined. Tax freedom day falls on April 15 in Illinois and on April 12 nationwide.

Yet tax freedom day underestimates how heavy the government's burden is by only reflecting the size of the bills we actually pay to the government, not the spending we are pushing off on future generations in the form of higher deficits and debt. If we paid all of our bills to the government, the way it spends money, tax freedom day would not come until May 23.

With a government that consumes so much, it is fair to ask: Is the government spending as efficiently as possible on programs it is funding? Sadly, it is very clear that waste, fraud, and duplication still exist widely in the Federal Government.

To call attention to these issues, I introduced the ``silver fleece award'' in homage of Senator William Proxmire's ``golden fleece,'' but this one is made of silver, not gold, because we are headed for more austere times. In the month of February, this award was voted by Facebook users on ``waste book'' and was given to a program awarding $1 million to provide signs displaying poetry in zoos.

I rise today to announce the nominees for the month of March and to announce the winner. The second runner up was a grant related to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA, and Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, or SAFETEA- LU, which was awarded $150,000 to create special tunnels for salamanders to pass under a Vermont road. The first runner up was a video game, funded by the Federal Government, called ``WolfQuest,'' which was developed using a National Science Foundation grant of $609,160 to the Minnesota Zoo.

However, the March winner of the ``silver fleece award,'' with a 63- percent vote, is a grant of $460,000 funding a study on why people lie on text messages, instant messaging services, social networking Web sites, and other modern communication systems. Yes, we spent over $460,000 of hard-earned taxpayer dollars to tell you why people lie when they are communicating electronically.

There are new nominees for the April ``silver fleece award.'' This month's nominees were put forward by a leader on the issues of fighting pork and government waste in the House, Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona. He nominated $450,000 in grants from the State Department for art shows in Venice, Italy, $130,276 in National Health Foundation funds to sponsor the creation and distribution of a cookbook, and $328,835 spent on an Air Force photo op in New York City.

We invite your votes and your feedback on ``wastebook on Facebook'' to decide what next month's ``silver fleece award'' winner will be.

The sad thing in all of this is that the only current loser is the American people.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Madam President, this morning our former National Security Adviser, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State Colin Powell will visit the White House, and I expect they will discuss the current mission against the Qadhafi dictatorship in Libya.

When we look at this mission, I think it is important to review the wise words of General Powell in his recommendation in considering any military mission for the United States in her coming years. When we think about his advice--many times, it has been called the Powell doctrine, and it was memorialized in a 1992 article in Foreign Affairs magazine called ``U.S. Forces: Challenges Ahead.'' This article became known very much as the Powell doctrine, with two additions that the public and press often put on his thoughts about military missions for the United States.

In short, the Powell doctrine includes answers to a number of questions that any President, Secretary of State, or Secretary of Defense should answer prior to or at the very least during a military mission involving the United States. Those questions are as follows:

Is the political objective we seek important, clearly defined, and understood?

Next, have all other nonviolent policy means failed?

Third, will military force achieve the objective?

Fourth, at what cost?

Next, have the gains and risks been analyzed?

Finally, how might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences?

Added to this, the press and public have offered two more additions often called part of the Powell doctrine: Can we hit the enemy with overwhelming force, and can we demonstrate the support of the American people for the mission as shown by a vote of the U.S. Congress?

When we look at the current Libyan mission and apply the Powell doctrine, we see a mixed picture, one that should be fixed by a rigid application of its questions and answers to them reported back to the American people.

I support our mission in Libya, and I think the President's address to the Nation was a good start. But I think we

would serve our troops well if we proceeded to answer the Powell doctrine questions rigidly.

First, is the political objective we seek to achieve important, clearly defined, and understood?

I think the end of the Qadhafi regime is important. I think the protection of civilians from an impeding massacre is also important. And I think it would be clearly understood by the American people. But in practical terms, we cannot protect, for example, the people of Benghazi unless we stop the killer, and the only way to stop him is to disarm him and remove him from power. I think that objective would be clearly understood, would be welcomed by our European and Arab allies, and would bring about the long-term protection of the civilian communities by which the administration first justified this action.

Secondly, have all nonviolent policies means failed?

There is a 30-year record of diplomacy with regard to the Libyan dictatorship. Muammar Qadhafi has shown himself to be one of the most violent, corrupt, and at times even crazy leaders from the continent of Africa. While the United States has had difficulties with him for three decades, while Secretary Gates has referred to the imposition of Jersey barriers here in Washington, DC, as early as 1983 when there were reports of potential Qadhafi threats to our President--at the time, President Reagan--it took several decades for the rest of the world to lose patience with Muammar Qadhafi.

The decision by the United Nations and Arab League and surrounding nations not just to support resolutions in internal forums but then for some of those nations, numbering over a dozen, to take military action, shows that finally the international community has broken with Muammar Qadhafi and feels that diplomacy and nonviolent means no longer can work with regard to managing him and the threat he poses.

Will military force achieve the objective?

I think it can. But here is a situation that is somewhat mixed. If air power is only applied to a combat air patrol to enforce a no-fly zone, there is the potential for Libyan armor and artillery to overwhelm what is a very disorganized and rag-tag civilian army that initially made gains against Qadhafi, then lost them and stood at the gates of Benghazi, then retook key communities, such as al-Bayda, Brega, and came to the outskirts of Sirte, then relost nearly all of those gains this week.

When we look at how we should support the end of this dictatorship and the final protection of civilians in Libya, we should understand that the provision of close air support to take out Libyan armor and artillery is essential to this mission and that we should develop the means to command, control, and direct this effort.

I am concerned that today, I am unsure--maybe uninformed but unsure-- as to how the close air support mission is handled. Originally when this mission was undertaken, it was falling under the command and control of standard U.S. military doctrine. Since Libya is part of the AFRICOM combatant command area of operations, this operation, as I understood it, fell under the command of the President of the United States, to the Secretary of Defense, to GEN Carter Ham, commander of AFRICOM. As the United States then moved to more internationalize internalize the military effort, it sought to transfer command to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, and its commander, who also happens to be an American, Admiral Stavridis, who stands not only as the commander of U.S. forces in Europe but as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.

I understand the administration has put forward a task force to be commanded potentially by a senior Canadian general who would command this operation. I understand that diplomacy went well with regard to the command of the anti-air operation in this endeavor, but the negotiations with regard to the provision of close air support were much more difficult.

Today, I am not exactly sure who is in command of those operations. Is it General Ham at AFRICOM? Is it the Canadian general at the joint task force? Is it Admiral Stavridis, as the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe? My hope is that we identify one key allied commander who is not just in charge of combat air patrol enforcing a no-fly zone but also close air support to ensure that the rebels are not defeated, to attrite armor and artillery from Muammar Qadhafi's army, and to eventually achieve a lasting victory, which, in my mind, could only mean the end of the Qadhafi dictatorship.

I am particularly concerned today about key weapons systems that are available to the United States and not to other countries, particularly the A-10 Warthog and the AC-130 gunship. These are unique assets, critical in the ability to take out Libyan tanks and artillery.

If we internationalize this conflict and as I have heard potential talk of removing combat platforms of the United States from executing close air support missions, my question is, Would AC-130 gunships and A-10s be available for these missions? They are uniquely effective and would make this conflict shorter and more likely to end victoriously. And my hope is that they would continue to be provided to the allied commander so that the progress could move forward on eventually ending this conflict.

General Powell also asked that we estimate the cost of this operation. My understanding this morning is that this operation has cost roughly about $500 million and would likely entail greater cost if it lasts for a long time.

We should estimate this cost, and we should also tell the Congress how we are going to pay for it. My understanding right now is that the administration will not seek a supplemental and will take this out of the core budget of the Department of Defense. What implications does this have for procurement, for military construction, for pay and benefits, and for other critical operations of the United States, led, in order of importance, the Afghan mission, the Iraq mission, and the dozen-plus ships that are now providing the critical humanitarian relief and nuclear recovery of our allies in Japan?

General Powell also asked us to ask the question, have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed?

While they may not have been thoroughly analyzed, I am comfortable with the administration's answers to those questions. Had Qadhafi taken Benghazi, had he defeated the rebel government, I think he would have then moved, over time, to destabilize the new government in Egypt.

An end to the Camp David peace accords would be a strategic reversal for the United States. It would put at jeopardy the operations of the Suez Canal. It would have increased the dangers to our allies in the State of Israel. And I think the administration was wise to see a tremendous additional risk had Qadhafi won this war. Now, at least we know the rebels are likely not to be defeated, but a stalemate is also not in our interest. And I would hope we would recall the advice of General Sherman, who said that we should make this as rough and as difficult as possible to the enemy so that, ironically, in most humanitarian terms, it ends, and it ends on the terms of the United States, our allies, and the new rebel government.

Powell also asked us how we might see the situation, once it is altered by force, further develop and what consequences there are there.

My hope is that we would quickly follow the direction of the French Government and recognize the Jalil government, to see that government as a growing potential partner for the United States and the allies so that the people of Libya would see who their potential transitional leaders are and so that we would have clear political authority for them. My hope is that a U.S. envoy would deal directly with the Jalil government and that we would follow the suit of our allies and we would make sure there are clear lines of authority, not just on the military side for combat air patrol and close air support but also political direction for the potential new leaders of Libya.

Added to the Powell doctrine are the two other points often included. One is, can we hit the enemy with overwhelming force?

I strongly support the administration's limitation on no combat boots on the ground. I think that is a wise decision by the United States, and I think we can still direct terrific, tremendous, overwhelming, and decisive

force to end this conflict as quickly as possible. My understanding is that other allied governments may not be so completely constricted on their ability to provide especially the critical role of forward air controllers, who will direct allied air power to the most effective targets to attrite and eventually eliminate the Libyan military. My hope is, though, that we bring all combat assets to bear of the United States and our allies so that we quickly eliminate especially Qadhafi's armor and artillery force and so that this comes to a quick end on the military battlefield.

Finally, the Powell doctrine often has included a final point, which is, Can the support of the American people be demonstrated?

I think in this case we have fallen short. While the Congress and the Senate have adopted a resolution calling for a no-fly zone in Libya, cosponsored by myself and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, I think this is inadequate in fully demonstrating the American people's support for what our troops are doing over in Libya.

I think it is clear that our mission is sustained, and the critical political will of the United States is enhanced if we can formally express support for what our men and women are doing overseas. This has been done in some pretty tough conflicts in the past, particularly Afghanistan and Iraq.

For this conflict, the administration should call for a resolution of approval, and the elected representatives of the American people should vote. In general, I support the President's policy and would vote for this resolution. But I think it is essential for those who are on the field to understand that the Congress is formally with them in a vote cast up or down for this mission and for all of its unintended consequences, potential upsides or downsides.

As Colin Powell leaves the White House today, I hope he carries this advice. I hope all of us recall the key points he laid out. He has wisely put forward for past Presidents and this President a key checklist that all of us as citizens, or those of us who are Senators, as policymakers, can have in reviewing the Powell doctrine.

In the end, the Powell doctrine is a key checklist to use to make sure we resist the call for military action until absolutely necessary; but once necessary, that we hit the enemy with everything we have; that we make the conflict as short and, therefore, as humanitarian as possible; that we demonstrate the full support of the American people for the men and women of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and that we give them a clear mission with one allied commander. I hope the President gets this advice directly from the general today. I hope the President and the Senate follow it.

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

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