Floor Statements

Mr. President, this amendment does two things. First, it increases taxes on business men and women trying to provide some alternative energy for this country. It increases taxes on those men and women.

Second, it eases out revenue by increasing taxes on individuals and uses it to lower the corporate tax rate. That is one of the main things this does.

Third, it repeals credits and deductions on one section of our energy industry--the renewables, the alternatives--but it doesn't for conventional oil and gas.

So, No. 1, this raises taxes on individuals and uses it to lower the corporate rate; and, No. 2, it is unbalanced because it reduces credits and deductions in the alternative area but not on the conventional energy area. It is unbalanced and wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1825.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Crapo and Risch be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. It compensates counties that have the lack of a private land base; that is, counties that do not have the ability to collect property taxes because of Federal land. This revenue goes to schools, it goes to jobs and roads. I might add, in the State of Oregon, 20 percent goes to highway spending. This is the highway bill. It has been supported strongly in the past by this body. The offset has been worked out.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support it. This is a good, solid program.

I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Wyden.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murkowski be added as a cosponsor to the preceding amendment.

Mr. President, I would ask, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I rise to object to the Blunt amendment. I believe this amendment is extreme and it would undermine the delicate balance between religious freedom and a woman's health. It would be a mistake. It goes too far. It would allow any employer to prevent a woman's access to mammograms, prenatal care, even vaccinations or any other form of preventive care. In Montana, my State, 62,000 women could lose access to preventive care. I am here to say that is wrong, and I am going to go to bat for them. I think a woman should decide for herself and her family what preventive care makes the most sense for her.

As Americans, we believe in individual liberties and equal access to health care. Current policy upholds those values. It preserves the integrity of a woman's freedom and the right to access all health care services. It protects the religious liberties that so many Americans, including myself, value. And that is why both faith-based and health communities support this policy--not the Blunt amendment but the current policy. The Blunt amendment would overturn this. It would allow any corporation or health plan to deny women and their families access to preventive health care for almost any reason. It is written so broadly that an employer or an insurance company could deny access to preventive care for virtually any reason. That is not right.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Blunt amendment. I urge them to protect the health of all Americans. That includes our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters in Montana and across the country.

In Montana, we are very proud to have sent the first woman to Congress--Ms. Jeannette Rankin--in 1916. We have a very strong tradition in our State of respecting women--women who are not only the hearts of our families but are also those providing the fabric of our communities. When we support women's health, we are supporting healthy communities that could be strong for our kids and our grandkids.

Let's uphold our values of liberty. Let women choose for themselves individually. It is their responsibility what preventive care they think makes the most sense for them. And let's treat all Americans fairly. Let's defend against discriminatory health insurance practices, and let's do so while protecting everyone's fundamental rights.

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

In ``Common Sense,'' the American patriot Thomas Paine wrote in 1776 as follows:

The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant,

the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid

which each receives from the other, and from the whole.

Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their

law. Common interest produces common security.

In the 240 years since Paine's pamphlet helped define who we are as Americans, our transportation system has become the cornerstone of our common interest. There are few things under the Sun that are not impacted by our highways, our roads and bridges, and our transit systems, yet we can too easily take our network for granted.

A recent Rockefeller Foundation survey found that two-thirds of all respondents believe America should invest more in infrastructure. It is a common interest. That same survey found that two-thirds of all Americans believe they should not have to pay any more for this increase in infrastructure investment. That means we have to rise to the challenge in Congress to come up with a highway bill that invests in infrastructure without asking folks to pay more than their fair share.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Transportation Performance Index, we could lose nearly $340 billion in potential economic growth over the next 5 years if we do not pass a highway bill and provide the certainty our economy needs. Let me make that statement again. We could lose $340 billion in potential economic growth over the next 5 years if we do not pass a highway bill and provide the certainty our economy needs.

Our transportation system depends on substantial investments from the

Federal Government. This investment consistently yields a big return for American jobs. In my home State of Montana, the last highway bill created or sustained more than 18,000 good-paying jobs, and nationwide it put approximately 35,000 people to work for every $1 billion invested. So for every $1 billion invested, it created 35,000 jobs. These are not just statistics, these numbers represent families able to put food on the table. They are good jobs. These numbers represent small businesses able to attract new customers.

I know these types of investments work because I spent a day working alongside a road construction crew on Amsterdam Road in Bozeman. They showed me the ropes of running a road grader, a paver, and an excavator. I might say, the grader was really up to date. All I had to do was get in the grader, move forward, and it was guided by a GPS system that raised the blade, turned the blade, tilted the blade at exactly the right location, and it was a perfect line I made down that road, whereas if I had had to do it by myself, it would have been a mess. The GPS made it work. During the workday, I talked to about a dozen workers who said their families depended on the project for their livelihood. It was very impressive. Their work also had a major impact on the community because Amsterdam Road is one of the most traveled roads in the area.

Investing in our transportation infrastructure is investing in our families and our economy. It is an investment. It yields great returns. It pays dividends. This bill seeks to maintain that investment through 2013; that is, the underlying bill that is before us--not the Blunt amendment but the underlying bill. I would prefer a longer period of time in the underlying bill to provide greater certainty. We are already 2 years past due. We have had lots of extensions. We must work together now to get something done at least until the end of next year, and a 2-year bill provides the compromise we need to get there.

I have worked on this bill for about 4 years from the leadership perspective of two different Senate committees: the Environment and Public Works Committee, which provided the authorization for roads, highways, bridges, and various forms of nonmotorized transportation, and the Finance Committee, which provided the money so we can have the proceeds and the resources to pay for these highways.

From the perspective of investment, I can tell you firsthand that this bill specifically focuses on those programs that are truly in our shared national interest. It consolidates nearly 90 road programs down to approximately 30. Consolidating 90--lots of individual, separate programs that kind of divide our country, didn't bring us together--to 30--30 programs that rely on the highway trust fund.

This bill also focuses on dramatically improving our national capacity for data-gathering and data-sharing--desperately needed. We sought to enable States to address safety and mobility difficulties by seeing what solutions have worked in other States. More data will help them better answer those questions. For example, why in some States--my State of Montana--is the highway fatality rate 2\1/2\ times the national average? There are a lot of ideas, but what are the real reasons? We need data to find out.

This bill creates for the first time a dedicated freight program to address interstate commerce.

The bill extends a program called TIFIA. That is a lending program that leverages private sector investment, good investment, building roads and bridges. History tells us that every $1 we put in can leverage $30 in private sector investment.

This bill has no earmarks--no earmarks. Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Vitter, and I worked hard to achieve agreements, and I thank my colleagues who serve on the Environment and Public Works Committee for unanimously approving this bill and its reforms--unanimously.

I especially would like to applaud Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for their leadership. They worked very hard, and they worked together. Sometimes people think Washington can't work together. Let me tell you, I have watched these two people work very closely together. They were a team to get a highway bill here before the Senate.

Next, from the perspective of the Finance Committee, the bill provides the highway trust fund with sufficient funding to last at least until the end of fiscal year 2013. The highway trust fund simply does not bring in enough revenue from traditional funding sources, such as the fuel tax, to meet our national needs. As a result, Democrats and Republicans on the committee had to look elsewhere to ensure for the short term that we could maintain current levels of Federal investment. In the long term, we should use the opportunity to decide what we want for a transportation network in the 21st century. So we are going to pass this short-term bill, and while we are passing this short-term bill, we have to give a lot of thought to what we want to do for the long term. We should use that opportunity to decide what makes the most sense for the 21st century. Where we could apply unused fuel tax money that currently goes to the leaking underground storage tank trust fund surplus, the Finance Committee did so with support from Democrats and Republicans. And where we transferred money from the general fund to the highway trust fund, we sought to backfill the general fund by closing tax gaps or focusing on tax scofflaws.

It is important that we make sure the highway bill stays focused on supporting the economy. In Montana, our highways are our lifeblood. We are a highway State. We log a lot of hours at the wheel. It is a part of who we are. We are the fourth largest State in the Nation for land mass, but we have fewer residents than Rhode Island, the smallest State in size.

My friend the former Senator Mike Mansfield said in 1967:

Montanans are formed by the vastness of a state whose

mountains rise to 12,000 feet in granite massives, piled one

upon another as though by some giant hand. To drive across

the state is to journey, in distances, from Washington, DC,

north to Toronto, or south to Florida. In area, we can

accommodate Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania and

New York, and still have room for the District of Columbia.

Yet, in all this vastness, we are . . . less than a million

people.

A few weeks ago, we just tipped the needle on 1 million residents. I might say, I am not sure we are happy about that. Some of us want to be under 1 million in population and some kind of like 1 million. It is a big debate in our State: Should we be 1 million or less than 1 million? Nonetheless, we lack the population to make the necessary investments in Federal aid roads and interstates by ourselves, and we shouldn't have to do so. Montana alone could not support the Interstate Highway System--we couldn't do it--or the other national highways in our State. We don't have the people. With more than 10 million visitors annually and with the majority of our truck traffic originating and ending out of State, we rely on the Federal program with good reason: It is in our common interest--in the interest of Montana, in the interest of all those folks who transport freight across our State, and in the interest of people who want to visit Glacier Park or Yellowstone Park. It is in our common interest.

I am here to say that the more we keep our eye on the ball, with a transportation bill that keeps our common interests in mind, the more successful we will be.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be allowed on the Senate floor for the duration of the debate on S. 1813: Johannes Echeverri, Whitney Lott, Samson Chen, Edward Torres, Derrick Riggins, Elizabeth Samson, Amanda Summers, and Danielle Dellerson.

Mr. President, I assume the next business is the vote on the payroll bill. Before that, I will take 1 minute.

As we vote on this bill and prepare to go home, I ask you to remember four numbers: No. 1, 160 million; that is the number of Americans who are helped by this bill. The next number is 1,000; that is $1,000 that each of those Americans is going to benefit by, by passage of the bill. The next number is 13 million, which is the number of Americans who are unemployed and would be dramatically helped by this bill. Finally, 48 million, which is the number of seniors in America who have doctors take care of their health care needs.

Remember those four numbers and vote for this bill. Remember, the other body passed this bill by a margin of 293 to 132, evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. I urge passage of the bill.

Mr. President, there are a number of mistakes in the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference on H.R. 3630 related to sections 7003 and 7004 and the current law description of those sections:

No. 1, on page 36, in the paragraphs describing current law, the last clause of the last sentence of the third paragraph should read:

A Senate point-of-order against emergency designations

under BBEDCA exists pursuant to section 511 of public law 112

78.

No. 2, on page 37, in the paragraphs describing the conference substitute, the description of section 7003 should be deleted, and the paragraph labeled Section 7004 should be re-designated as section ``Section 7003'' and should read:

Paygo Scorecard Estimates--The budgetary effects of this

Act shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained

pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act

of 2010.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding lack of receipt of the papers from the House with respect to the conference report to accompany H.R. 3630, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report, as provided under the previous order.

I yield back all time.

Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff of the Finance Committee be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on the debt limit: Claire Green, Omar DeLeon, Elizabeth Samson, Amanda Summers, Johannes Echeverri, Whitney Lott, Samson Chen, Harun Dogo, David Sklar, and Amanda Bartmann.

Mr. President, Benjamin Franklin once said, ``Promises may fit the friends, but nonperformance will turn them into enemies.'' We should be clear about what the debt limit means and what it does not. Raising the debt limit does not authorize new spending. Let me make that clear. Raising the debt limit does not authorize new spending. It does not mean an increase in future spending.

What does it mean? It simply means the United States will be able to meet its obligations. Increasing the debt limit only permits the Treasury Department to pay the bills we have already incurred. It does not authorize new spending. It permits the government to pay the bills that have already been incurred. They have been incurred. We owe the obligation. It says: OK, we owe that. It is in the law, passed. It is history. We have to pay the bills. It allows our country to meet our promises to our citizens, and it means there is money to provide the benefits to millions of seniors and veterans whose families depend on them every day to make their ends meet.

We should remember why we are taking today's vote. Last August, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011. We all remember it. This legislation reduced spending by $2.1 trillion. That was a budget action taken by the President and the Congress together that reduced Federal spending by $2.1 trillion. It is a reduction. That is not commonly understood, not widely known, but that is the fact. And it provided a plan to raise the debt limit by the same amount. It did so so that the Federal Government could meet its financial obligations so we could keep our promises.

Today's vote would reverse that agreement in August. Voting to disapprove an increase in the financial limit is unreasonable. It would be very much like your bank increasing your line of credit unless you tell them not to. Nonetheless, that is the issue we are voting on and debating in the Senate.

Passing this resolution would mean there would be no money to keep our promises. The United States would default for the first time in its history. It would send a message to the world that the United States does not keep its promises. With all of the uncertainty in the world, especially in Europe, that could have disastrous consequences. It could be a contagion. There could be a reaction, a debt spiral in the wrong direction, an interaction between the two--the United States defaulting on its debt and Europe--some countries defaulting on theirs, perhaps Greece.

This is clearly the wrong time to take an action that would leave the United States to be placed in default. There would be disastrous consequences for our economy alone, irrespective of the repercussions and reverberations around the world, especially Europe. Our gross domestic product would shrink by as much as 1 percent and more than $150 billion. We would be defaulting. That default would compromise our credit rating. What would happen if our credit rating was in jeopardy? It would cause interest rates to skyrocket. Just think what would happen if the United States, as we are struggling to slowly get our economy going, was faced with a big spike in interest rates. That would stop the recovery dead in its tracks. It would do more than that. It would probably plunge us back into recession. That is what would happen. Yearly prices for food, gas, and utilities would increase by hundreds of dollars for American citizens. Americans could lose thousands in retirement savings; that is, if we default and interest rates have to go up so much as a consequence of default.

We have to act so investors would want to invest in the United States. If

we default, U.S. businesses would not be able to meet payroll much less expand. Millions of Americans would not be paid. Millions more would lose their jobs. We are trying to get the unemployment rate down. This would cause it to go up dramatically. Default would cause it to go up. If this passes, that would mean the United States would be in default and jobs would be harder to find and unemployment would rise. Americans would be unable to access credit to buy a home, a car, or take out loans for college. The housing market would plummet again. The economy would fall into another recession or even a depression.

At a time when our economy is starting to show signs of recovery, now is exactly the wrong time to risk a contraction. American workers, families, and small businesses cannot afford that, to say the least. If today's vote succeeds and causes a default, the Federal Government would not have funds to pay troop salaries.

What about SEAL Team 6 who took on Osama bin Laden? We read about them in the last couple of days rescuing an American out of Somalia. There would not be a SEAL Team 6, let alone the other troops that would not be paid. Social Security benefits would not be paid. Just think of that. Medicare bills would not be paid. Think of that.

These programs would all be in danger if we were to default, and a positive vote here would cause default. We are voting on a motion to disapprove. That would hurt the families and seniors who rely on these programs I just mentioned.

We need to do all we can to help these families make ends meet, not put their jobs and paychecks in danger. There is no doubt that we need to work together to reduce the deficit. Everybody agrees on that. We need to work together to get it done. Clearly, we need to make changes to both revenue and the spending sides of the budget. That is clear.

We need to do so in a way that doesn't put jobs and economic growth at risk. We need to do it, obviously, in a fair and balanced way. That is why the people in our States sent us here.

As we do that, we can't refuse to meet our country's obligations. There have been many efforts to reduce the budget deficit, whether it was the Biden deficit commission, the so-called supercommittee, and the many budget proposals we talked about--Bowles-Simpson and Rivlin- Domenici--and we are getting closer and closer and we are going to get the job done.

As we work on that, again, we cannot refuse to meet our country's obligations, and we have to make sure we pay the bills we have already incurred. We need to show the world the United States keeps its promises. We have to show people we live up to our word.

I urge my colleagues to keep our promises and to vote no on the motion to proceed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Illinois.

Mr. President, I will speak on a different matter for about 2 minutes. I wish to compliment the senior Senator from Kentucky for his longtime work on behalf of dissidents in Burma. Very recently, he visited Burma. He met Aung San Suu Kyi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. As the senior Senator from Kentucky reported to us earlier this morning on the floor of the Senate, we as Americans are making real progress in Burma. Our sanctions in Burma are working. The government there is relenting. I have had briefings from the State Department, and while we need to retain sanctions for the time being to encourage further progress, it is undeniable that we have been seeing real progress in Burma. The dissidents, as led by Aung San Suu Kyi, are engaged in this process. Again, I want to compliment the Senator from Kentucky for his 20 years of work in this area, and I

think it is probably in large part due to his efforts that we are making progress in Burma.

Mr. President, turning back to the subject at hand, Alexander Hamilton once said:

To be able to borrow upon good terms, it is essential that

the credit of a nation should be well established.

That is obvious. We have low interest rates today because so far we have been able to borrow on good terms. The good terms are that the American people and investors worldwide know the United States is a safe haven given all the consternation occurring in the world, the problems in Europe, for example, and other countries. The United States is a safe haven. Investors want to borrow on U.S. Treasurys. That is why the rate is low, the lowest in recent history. And that is essentially because our credit is good. Investors trust the United States.

It is important to also remember that this debt limit we are voting on today is not an authorization for new spending. I repeat, it does not authorize new spending. That is not what this is. It has nothing to do with new spending. It just says that we have to honor our past bills, honor our past debts. As Alexander Hamilton said, for a country to be on good terms, it is important that we honor our past debts. The credit of a nation should be well established.

I strongly urge our colleagues to vote no on this motion to proceed to disapprove because the result would be chaos. If that were to pass, it would be chaos. We would plunge ourselves back into recession, probably through that into a depression. Interest rates would skyrocket. Inflation would skyrocket. We are trying to lower unemployment rates, not increase unemployment rates. We want people to have jobs, not people not to have jobs.

If the United States did not honor its bills, if the United States did not honor its debt it has heretofore incurred, it would cause chaos. It would show we are not a creditworthy country. For that reason, I think it is a no-brainer that this bill should be disapproved and, frankly, should be unanimously disapproved.

I think every Member of the Senate wants to honor the credit of the United States of America, wants to pay the bills we incurred in the past. It is an entirely different question as to what we do in the future, entirely different question as to how much we reduce our debt, entirely different question as to how much we cut spending and increase revenues in order to reduce our deficits and our debt. That is an entirely different issue--an extremely important issue but entirely different. That has nothing--nothing--to do with this vote. This vote is only whether we honor our past debts.

Once we say yes, we are going to honor our past debts, then clearly it is imperative that this body move ahead to reduce deficits, reduce our national debt. There has been a lot of discussion about that. We have not made as much headway as we should have. But it is important to remember that in August of last year, this Congress voted to reduce spending by $2 trillion, $2.1 trillion--to reduce spending by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. Close to $1 trillion of that was accomplished on that vote, and the other $1.2 is part of the sequestration which goes in effect in January of next year. It is not unimportant that this body voted to reduce spending by about $2 trillion.

So we should honor our past debts. We should reduce spending--we should reduce our budget debt and deficit. We do that by cutting spending and increasing revenue. That is a different issue. That is what we do in the future. That is what we have to work on this year and next year. But today, it is important for the world to know that we honor our commitments; the United States can be trusted; we have credit that is well established because we honor our past obligations.

I strongly urge Members of the Senate to vote no on the motion to proceed to disapproval because I think there would not be a positive outcome if that vote were to pass. I am not one who is prone to exaggeration or to hyperbole, but I might say in this case that if this motion were to proceed, we would be on the border of catastrophe.

I yield the floor.

I yield back the remainder of our time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the time from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. in morning business be reserved for the majority.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I wish to add my name as a cosponsor to the resolution.

Mr. President, in only two weeks, many critical tax incentives will expire. These provisions are vitally important to many families and businesses. Once again, Congress is leaving town without taking care of business. Once again, Congress is creating uncertainty. During these tough economic times, uncertainty in the tax arena is the last thing that Americans need.

Today families are struggling because of lost jobs and high costs. Extending expiring tax incentives will help many American families get through these tough times.

For example, with the rising cost of a higher education, families need help to cover their costs. The Tax Code includes a tuition deduction to assist college students with the rising cost of tuition. In 2009, about 2.4 million families took this much needed benefit.

Also expiring is a provision that gives tax relief to the people that we trust with America's future, our children. Many teachers dedicated their lives to educating our young people. To further this endeavor, teachers take money from their own pockets to buy supplies for the classroom. Many do not get much help with these costs. The least we can do is provide a little tax relief. This bill would extend the teacher expense deduction. Over 3.8 million families took this deduction in 2009.

There are also several provisions expiring that benefit American businesses. Without the tax incentives, businesses will have less certainty and fewer tools to compete in the global arena. This will further hamper job creation and growth.

One such incentive is the research and development credit. The provision rewards companies that strive to create new and improved products and services by performing research and development. The extension of the R&D credit is essential to American businesses being competitive in the global market. The extension of the R&D credit will boost America's economy and create good-paying jobs.

There are also several provisions expiring that incentivize businesses to invest in alternative fuel sources. For example, the dollar-per-gallon credit for biodiesel and renewable diesel helps move us to a cleaner and more energy independent future.

These are just a few of the provisions that must be renewed each year. Members on both sides of the aisle worked hard to extend these and many other provisions before the end of the year. We must continue to work to get these provisions extended so that American businesses and families can continue to receive these tax incentives. We must not keep people in limbo. That is one of the very first and highest priorities we have when we come back in session in January.

I have been working with ranking member Hatch for more than a year now on broad-based, fundamental tax reform. That reform is much needed and long overdue. A bedrock principle for reform is to increase the certainty that Americans have in what their tax laws will be from year to year. So we will work hard to eliminate temporary provisions that are dependent on the whim of Congress at the end of each year for renewal. In the interim, it is time to extend these provisions.

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

Mr. President, Henry Clay once said:

Of all the properties which belong to honorable men, not

one is so highly priced as that of character.

It is my distinct privilege to rise today to speak on a nominee that possesses such character, Dana Christensen. The Senate will soon take up Dana's nomination for U.S. district judge for the District of Montana. To ensure the most ethical and qualified attorney was appointed as district judge, I created an advisory selection panel made up of five Montana lawyers with diverse legal backgrounds from across our State and across party lines.

I said to them: You just get me the best, the four or five best people I can choose from. I do not care if they are Republicans or Democrats or liberals or conservatives, you just get me the very best qualified.

That is what they did. From them I chose Dana Christensen, and the panel unanimously and enthusiastically recommended the nomination of Dana Christensen. I was proud to pass this recommendation on to the President.

Dana is a fourth generation Montanan, raised in Missoula, MT. He graduated from Stanford University in 1973, received his law degree from the University of Montana Law School in 1976. Dana started his legal career at the Billings, MT, law firm of Moulton, Belingham, Longo & Mather, and then moved to Kalispell in 1981 to join the law firm of Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn & Phillips. In 1998, Dana and two of his partners formed a new firm in Kalispell, MT, which has become one of the leading firms in Montana for civil defense, business law, real estate, and estate planning. Dana has tried more than 50 trials in State and Federal courts. He has an active mediation and arbitration practice. Outside of the office, Dana has been an active member of his community: a member of the board of directors of his local chamber of commerce, a member of the University of Montana School of Law board of visitors, and a member of the faculty of the University of Montana Advanced Trial Advocacy Program.

Over the past 35 years, Dana has commanded the respect of his colleagues across the State of Montana and elsewhere. Dana has received the highest rankings from peer review organizations, Chambers USA and Super Lawyers. He is also a member of the selective American Board of Trial Advocates and the American College of Trial Lawyers.

Upon his nomination in May, Montana's legal community lent their strong support for Dana's selection. U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull, who was appointed by President George Bush in 2001, said:

I do not think there is a better prospect in the whole

State.

U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon, also appointed by President Bush, echoed his colleague. Judge Haddon said:

He's a good lawyer, a good man, and in my opinion,

ethically totally qualified. The district will be well served

by him.

I have gotten to know Dana over the past several decades. I could not agree more with Judge Sebold and Judge Haddon. Dana embodies those qualities that Montana and America need on the Federal bench: intellect, extensive experience in the courtroom, commitment to public service, integrity, and respect for precedent and the rule of law.

I congratulate Dana, his wife Stephanie, and his wonderful children, Cassidy and Ben, on this extraordinary achievement. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Merkley's calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. I support bringing our troops home for two reasons: First, we can't afford what we are spending today in Afghanistan. Second, we need to focus on nation building here at home.

We are spending $10 billion per month in Afghanistan. Every dime of it is deficit spending. We should listen to the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen. He said our debt is the top security threat facing the United States. We can't continue down this path.

Our troops continue to serve heroically on some of the toughest missions imaginable. They have done everything we have asked of them-- and we have asked a lot through weekends and holidays, over frigid mountains and hot deserts. The service of the men and women of the military has been nothing short of remarkable.

It is now time to hand over the responsibility of this war to the Afghans. Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently held a Loya Jirga, or grand assembly, among leaders and elders from across Afghanistan.

The assembly approved a resolution calling for the Afghans to take the lead role of the war effort. Let's take them up on their offer. Let's not have American men and women doing the work that Afghans want to do for themselves.

For years we have been putting war spending on our national credit card. In 2003, I joined Senators Biden and Conrad in offering an amendment to the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill that would have offset the war spending.

Instead of adopting the amendment, Congress elected to pay for the war with deficit spending. Over the past decade, we have grown our debt by $1.3 trillion due to war spending alone. The President's budget projects $500 billion dollars in war spending in the coming decade. This spending is in addition to the trillions we will spend on the defense base budget. This endless deficit spending is simply not sustainable.

During our work on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, every member of the panel came to a better appreciation of the difficult financial decisions we face as a nation. There is no choice: we have to balance our books.

But how we balance our books will reflect who we are as a nation, what our values are, what our goals are. Most important, these choices will determine whether the 21st century will be the American century or whether we will cede our leadership to countries such as China.

In the year ahead, Congress will make a number of hard choices, and we must be strategic about these choices. We will choose among essential investments in education, infrastructure, health care for our veterans and seniors, and maintaining the best military in the world.

And every month we spend $10 billion dollars in Afghanistan will limit what we can do at home. Every dollar we send to Afghanistan is one less dollar we have for health care for our seniors or education benefits for our veterans.

The tough choices must be made at a time when the world is changing rapidly. During his final press conference as the U.S. Ambassador to Japan on November 14, 1988, Mike Mansfield said:

[Japan and the United States] will work together in the

next century which will be the Century of the Pacific.

Our two nations working together will be able to compliment

and guide the rest of the world as it moves into this area,

into the [Pacific] basin, because we both realize that it is

in that Basin where it all is, where it is all about, and

where our joint future lies.

Looking back 23 years later, his remarks seem prescient. According to the World Bank, China's average annual GDP growth rate since 2001 has been 10.4 percent. Asian developing nations collectively had an average growth rate of 9.1 percent. The United States has seen an average growth of just 1.7 percent.

The 21st century will not be the American century if we don't change course. During the first decade of this century, we spent $5.9 trillion dollars on defense spending, much of it in Iraq and Afghanistan. During that same decade, China spent $1.1 trillion. Now, which nation's power increased more during that period?

China is flexing muscles abroad not with shiny new weapon systems but with their growing financial power. China is now the second-largest economy in the world, and it continues to grow.

We are seeing our influence wane around the world not because we are short an aircraft carrier but because some have begun to question American resolve, the ability of American political process to solve basic problems and to govern.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans are out of work and struggling to make ends meet. Last year, I asked the Congressional Budget Office to prepare a report on income inequality in this country. The statistics are sobering. The top 1 percent of earners in the United States more than doubled their

share of income in the past 30 years. The wealthiest fifth of the country earned more than the other four-fifths combined.

These are only but a few of the great challenges we face at home, and to overcome these challenges we have to work together. To compete and win in today's world, we need to balance our budget, grow our economy, and invest in education and infrastructure. We can't afford another year of spending tens of billions of dollars on nation building overseas.

For the 21st century to be the American century, we are going to have to make some changes. We need to bring our troops home from Afghanistan and focus on nation building here at home. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Merkley's amendment.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the work of a group of students enrolled in the Scholars Program at Flathead Valley Community College in Kalispell, MT.

As a member of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction charged with coming up with a plan to tackle the deficit, I asked my bosses--the people of the great State of Montana--to send me their ideas on how to reduce the deficit.

Montana was built upon hard work, sacrifice, and values born on the frontier that remind us: we are all in this together. It is the same spirit that the Joint Select Committee must tap into in order to succeed.

So far, I have received over 1,200 letters, calls, and e-mails from Montanans with thoughts on deficit reduction and ideas that implicate all aspects of the Federal budget.

Montanans sent their suggestions on programs to trim or eliminate, where we could find additional sources of revenue, and where Congress should tread carefully, to not lose sight of those investments critical to the future of Montana and the entire United States.

The challenge facing the Joint Select Committee also poses an important opportunity for us to learn as a nation and as students of history.

That is why I invited Montana's colleges and universities to involve students in the discussions. Flathead Valley Community College took on this challenge with vigor.

FVCC decided to incorporate this project into its Scholars Program, an honors program for the college's top students. The students spent almost a month on the project.

As we have done in the Joint Select Committee, students started by reviewing reports issued by the Congressional Budget Office and the various bipartisan deficit-reduction plans. The students then met over a 2-week period to discuss their own ideas and debate the merits of each proposal. They all agreed that the group would come up with one plan to put forth to my office and to Congress.

Now, before I talk about what the students have produced, it is important to say a word about Flathead Valley Community College and the community it serves. Kalispell, MT, is located in the upper northwestern corner of the State of Montana. Glacier National Park sits to the east, and the tip of Flathead Lake is to the south.

There are few places in the world privileged to such natural beauty. But this area has not been immune to the tough economic climate. Far from it.

The Flathead area, once dominated by the wood products industry, has witnessed the closure of some of its largest employers.

While Montana's overall unemployment rate has remained below the national average, Flathead County is well above it, right now at almost 10 percent. Surrounding Lincoln, Sanders, and Lake Counties currently sit at 13, 13.3, and 10 percent unemployment rates, respectively.

Flathead Valley Community College has come to be viewed as the model for 2-year education, both in Montana and nationally.

And like many 2-year colleges across the country, FVCC has experienced a significant increase in enrollment as a result of the economic downturn. Both young and old are returning to school to enhance their skills.

Over the past 2 years, FVCC's enrollment increased by 43 percent. Last year, FVCC added 239 sections of classes and hired 89 new adjunct faculty members to meet increased demand.

This past spring, FVCC graduated the largest class in its history, with 388 students receiving 438 degrees. One-fourth of those students were eligible for assistance through trade adjustment assistance or the Workforce Investment Act.

I raise this because it is important to note that these students participating

in this project are living this economic recession. I asked them to discuss and come up with deficit-reduction ideas. But they have done so with a keen eye on how these ideas could affect their community and the long-term impact on good-paying jobs.

After all the discussions, debates, and, undoubtedly, some disagreements, the students came together and submitted a full summary of their proposal to reduce the deficit. The ideas are wide-ranging and span virtually all aspects of the Federal budget.

For example, the students recognized that health care costs in this country pose a threat to the fiscal stability of the Nation. The students identified a series of ideas that could help in reducing health care costs, including incentivizing healthier lifestyles. The group also agreed that Congress should consider ideas for revenue. They highlighted areas such as corporate tax loopholes to find new sources of revenue. The students said Congress should look at reducing fraud and abuse in current programs.

While the students devoted most of their time to finding ways to reduce the deficit, they also highlighted the importance of investment. The group agreed investment in education and scientific research is an important role for the Federal Government to play. As their report states, ``many of the fiscal problems facing the country could be ameliorated by improving citizens' chances for a quality education.'' I could not agree more.

My hat goes off to the students and faculty for joining this important conversation for our families and for our country. It is clear from this report that they took this challenge seriously and understand the balance needed to address the deficit.

I would like to recognize the great work of those involved, including President Jane Karas, Ph.D., Scholars Program Director Ivan Lorentzen; Outreach Coordinator for Career Pathways Jeremy Fritz; and Executive Director for Institutional Research Brad Eldredge, Ph.D. And, most importantly, I would like to commend the students who took on this project: Ursula DeStefano, Tracy Lost-Bear, Lisa Steelye, and Heather Frayle.

It is my goal to make sure these students and their peers nationwide will be able to find good-paying jobs when they graduate. I am doing everything I can to address both our jobs deficit and our fiscal deficit so that we can leave our Nation in better shape than we found it for these students and their children.

I thank Flathead Valley Community College, the instructors, and students for their thoughtful ideas. I hope the experience inspired them to stay involved. They took this project seriously and worked hard to find agreement. We in Congress must do the same. The future for these students and this country is at stake.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a minute on this motion.

Mr. President, we all agree that the contractors who contract with the Federal Government should pay their taxes. I don't think there is any dispute on that. There is also agreement that we should not overburden small businesses which are paying their taxes. The bill before us would repeal the provisions scheduled to go into effect in 2013 to require a withholding of 3 percent of payments from the U.S. Treasury to the government contractors. There are two flaws in this. One, it lets all government contractors off the hook, even those who refuse to pay taxes. Those contractors would not be subject to the mechanism to make sure they pay. Second, this is paid for by rescinding $30 billion of appropriated funds, which is, frankly, contrary to the agreement reached with the President on the deficit reduction.

I ask colleagues to oppose the cloture motion to proceed to the bill.