Floor Statements

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I am going to have to do that, I wish to indicate Senator Shelby has been in discussions with the administration over an issue with which I am not terribly familiar, and I believe that is the genesis of his objection. He is not able to be here at the moment to state his position. Maybe in discussions with him, we can make some progress on these, sooner rather than later, but for the moment I am constrained to object on his behalf.

Madam President, a little earlier today the Massachusetts Secretary of State formally certified the election of Scott Brown as the new Senator and the newest Member of this body. He will come to Washington and be sworn in on the Senate floor, as is customary, later today. We all look forward to welcoming him. The people of Massachusetts are eager to have Senator Brown working on their behalf, and Republicans look forward to having him join our conference. This was certainly a high-profile election, but now it is time to get to work.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this morning, we received the administration's budget for the next fiscal year. While there are plenty of issues raised by this budget, the fundamentals are clear: this budget is more of the same--more spending, more taxes and more debt.

I think everyone can agree that last year's budget spent too much. With the trillion-dollar stimulus bill and massive increases in optional spending, the administration and Democrats in Congress simply spent too much and took us into record territory. But the administration assured us that it was an anomaly--that we just needed to get through the year and then we would get serious about our spending in 2010. Fiscal hawks on the other side of the aisle told us the same thing every time we raised the issue.

But now they have produced yet another massive budget filled with even more spending than last year's record totals. The President proposes to increase spending by another $100 billion--despite having already increased the size of the Federal Government to unprecedented levels. Even though the administration claimed that the current funding was unique due to the economic crisis, they show no sign of slowing spending.

And while spending is going up, taxes are going up even faster. Taxes on Americans will increase by over $400 billion--nearly 20 percent-- next year alone, with no improvement in sight. Does anyone truly believe this is a good time to raise taxes on job creators or anyone else?

This budget provides a startling figure that should stop us all in our tracks. According to the administration's budget, the interest on the Federal debt is expected to be nearly $6 trillion over the next decade. We have all heard about interest-only loans, but this is the equivalent of an average of $600 billion in interest every year. That is an astonishing number.

In fact, in just 4 years the administration predicts the Government will have to spend more just to pay interest on the Federal debt than it spends on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, HUD, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Treasury, and the Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, GSA, NASA, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration--combined.

In just 4 years, the interest the government will have to pay on our Federal debt will be more than it spends on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, HUD, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Treasury, and the Corps of Engineers, EPA, GSA, NSA, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration, and the Social Security Administration--combined.

The Senate will have an opportunity to write a new budget this year. Our leader on this issue, Senator Gregg, will have much more to say on the matter as we work to do what so many Americans are doing, and that is to get our budget in order. And I will have much more to say on the individual pieces of this blueprint, including the administration's priorities on our national and homeland security. But now it is crystal clear that this budget is more spending, more taxes, and more debt-- more spending, more taxes, more debt. Anyone listening to the American people knows this is not what they support, it is not what our country needs, and it is not the way to grow good jobs.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Campbellsville University Lady Tigers volleyball team, winners of the first national title for a team sport in that university's history. On December 5, 2009, the Lady Tigers swept the top-seeded Mount Vernon Nazarene University Cougars in three sets to win the National Christian College Athletic Association, NCCAA, Division I Women's Volleyball National Championship.

The Lady Tigers' winning championship game capped an eight-match win streak through the NCCAA Mid-East Regional Tournament and the NCCAA National Tournament. Every player on the team contributed to this victory. The members of this championship team are Shannon Cahill, Lilian Da Silva, Caitlin Dresing, Whitney Haynes, Samantha James, Jovana Koprivicia, Brooke Marcum, Caroline Martin, Renee Netherton, Lilian Odek, and Christiana Sindelar.

Two players also notched career highs on the way to this national championship. Senior Jovana Koprivicia of Serbia passed the 1,000 dig mark early this season, proving her a crucial part of this team's defense.

Senior Renee Netherton of Louisville, KY, passed the 1,000 kill mark for her career in the final national championship match. Each one of those kills represents a point for the Lady Tigers that kept them on their march to victory.

Winning the NCCAA national championship is obviously one of the greatest thrills of these girls' lifetimes. ``I'm a little nervous to take my uniform off, because once I do it's over,'' senior Renee Netherton said. ``I'm excited we went out so strong. It's such a great feeling to be able to picture that last hit in my head. That's going to stay with me forever.''

Success came often to the Lady Tigers this season. They finished second in the Mid-South Conference, won the NCCAA Mid-East Region, and received votes in both the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics, NAIA, and NCCAA national polls all season.

Head coach Randy LeBleu not only saw his team win the championship, he also was named the NCCAA Division I Coach of the Year. He coached the Lady Tigers to 38-13 overall, a program record for wins in a season. This was his fifth and final season as the Lady Tigers' head coach; he finishes with a 172-52 career record. Assistant coach Amy Eckenfels, who played a key role in bringing this team to the championship, will take over as head coach next season.

Founded in 1906, Campbellsville University has a tradition of teaching academic excellence, instilling a love of life-long learning, and nurturing an environment of Christian fellowship. Attracting students from 97 Kentucky counties, 30 States and 37 foreign nations, they have a student body of 3,000 and enrollment is increasing. Kentucky is grateful for the presence and the rewards of Campbellsville University.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Campbellsville Lady Tigers for their impressive season and for being the NCCAA Division I Women's Volleyball National Champions. Surely much success lies ahead for the members of this winning team.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Vermont. I hope I will not inconvenience him. I have a very short opening statement. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to make this statement.

As always, we appreciate the President coming to the Capitol last night. I take him at his word when he says he wants to work with us on issues that benefit the Nation and in particular to grow jobs. I would like to speak this morning about two areas in particular that meet the criteria of bipartisan achievements and job growth--agreements to increase our exports and finding more American energy. Those are two areas upon which we ought to be able to find bipartisan agreement.

The President called for increased exports and for the Congress to pass trade agreements that have languished under the current majority in the Senate. Republicans agree with the need to increase trade and with the need to ratify trade agreements with Colombia and other important trading partners that so far have met resistance on the other side of the aisle. We also support passing a sensible bill to help Pakistan establish reconstruction opportunity zones that actually increase trade and do not impose self-defeating restrictions. We agree with the President's call to pass these agreements. We agree that these agreements will lead to more American jobs. The Congress should act on these agreements.

The President also called for producing more American energy. This is an area with a huge opportunity for American jobs that cannot--cannot-- be sent overseas. We agree with his call for more clean energy produced here in America. We agree with his call for building more nuclear plants. We agree with his call for increased offshore exploration for oil and gas. We agree with his call for development of clean coal technologies. We should build a new generation of clean nuclear plants in this country. Senate Republicans support building 100 new plants as quickly as possible. We hope Democrats will join us in that effort, particularly now with the President's call to action. The President could start by moving forward on the nuclear loan guarantee program that was included in the bipartisan 2005 Energy bill. He could also put forward a plan for dealing with the waste that comes from these plants in a safe and secure manner.

The President and I agree on the need to meet in the middle to find bipartisan agreement to grow jobs. I have outlined two specific areas where the President and Republicans in Congress agree. We know that increased American energy, without a new national energy tax, will grow good jobs. We know that increasing markets for our farmers, entrepreneurs, and manufacturers overseas through trade agreements will grow good jobs. We can get these done, and I hope the President will join us in calling on the majority to bring these issues to the floor in the Senate.

One thing we had hoped to hear more about from the President last night was the administration's handling of the attempted Christmas Day bombing. After 9/11, all Americans recognized the need to create and coordinate myriad tools of defense, security, and intelligence to protect us from future attacks. That is why Americans are so troubled by the fact that the administration seems to have lost sight of this essential requirement for national security out of a preoccupation with reading the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights. Apparently, there was little, if any, coordination among key components of the administration's national security apparatus on how to treat this terrorist who nearly killed 300 innocent people over Detroit on Christmas Day. Shockingly, the administration then made the hasty decision to treat him as a civilian defendant, including advising him of the right to remain silent, rather than as an intelligence resource to be thoroughly interrogated in order to obtain potentially lifesaving information.

Republicans have issued a letter to Attorney General Holder demanding answers to some of the vital questions that arise out of the administration's handling of this attempted attack. It is critical that Americans have a full and timely understanding of the policy and legal rationale upon which the ill- advised decision surrounding this narrowly averted calamity was made. Until these concerns are addressed, Republicans will continue to raise them on behalf of the American people.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Obviously, I will not be objecting. I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Arizona and to thank him, as well as Senator Lieberman, for their involvement in this issue, as well as the majority leader, and just make one comment.

Frequently, these kinds of unilateral sanction measures make little or no difference. This measure, however, is crafted in such a way that it could actually become effective, with America alone not having to depend on the cooperation of the other countries that tend to be less concerned about whether Iran ultimately becomes armed with nuclear weapons.

So this is an important piece of legislation, as the majority leader said, as Senator McCain has said, and Senator Lieberman has said. It can actually make a difference.

The time to act on this measure is long overdue.

A year ago, the administration came into office with the idea it would try to engage Tehran diplomatically in order to get it to halt its uranium enrichment program. And yet the past year has shown us that the Iranian regime is intent on acquiring the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. This is now abundantly clear.

Our straightforward proposal to provide Iran with nuclear fuel for civilian purposes in exchange for its stockpile of low enriched uranium failed to produce any concessions.

The Iranian regime has shown no interest in limiting its nuclear ambitions. And an entire year was lost as Iran moved closer and closer to its goal.

Some recent highlights from that lost year:

In September, the world learned of Iran's covert uranium enrichment facility in Qom.

That same month, Iran test fired a series of medium and longer range missiles that put U.S. bases in the gulf and our ally, Israel, within range.

In October, the U.N. Security Council and Germany offered to enrich Iran's uranium abroad--an offer that was met by more delay and obfuscation by Tehran.

Deadlines came and went. And just a few days ago, the U.N. Security Council failed to agree on a new round of sanctions.

So here we are, a year later. And what has been the result of diplomatic engagement?

Iran is closer to realizing its nuclear aspirations, and the U.S. has nothing to show for the outreach.

And here is what is at stake:

Standing by and permitting Tehran to satisfy its nuclear ambitions would pose a grave threat to American interests in the Middle East and South Asia. The Iranian government is already a profoundly destabilizing influence in the region. It supports proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan that have killed U.S. and allied troops. It has threatened to wipe one of our closest allies, Israel, off the map. It supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. It ruthlessly suppresses its own citizens for peaceful demonstrations.

If the Obama administration will not take action against this regime, then Congress must.

That is why we are proposing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.

This act would direct sanctions at one of Iran's biggest vulnerabilities: its low level refining capacity.

This is a point of leverage we must use sooner rather than later. Time is of the essence.

This legislation cleared the Republican side of the aisle several weeks ago.

We are eager for this measure to pass.

So I urge the Democratic leadership to call this legislation up immediately.

We have lost a year already. We can't afford any further delay.

I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Madam President, last night, the President spoke about many things. I would like to focus for a moment on one of them: his comments related to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. This is an issue to which I have devoted a great deal of time over the years, so I think it is important to set the record straight as to what the court did and did not do in this very important, and in my view, correct ruling.

Here's what the President said:

Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to

open the floodgates for special interests--including foreign

corporations--to spend without limit in our elections.

That is what the President said last night.

Here is why he is wrong.

According to title 2 of U.S.C. Section 441e:

Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from ``directly or indirectly'' making ``a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election.''

The statute goes on to prohibit foreign corporations from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party. Foreign corporations are also prohibited from making any ``expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.''

None of these prohibitions were at issue in the Citizens United case.

In other words, foreign corporations were prohibited from participating in U.S. elections before the Citizens United decisions and they still are--unambiguously.

Let me make that perfectly clear: Citizens United did not change one thing in current law regarding the prohibition on foreign corporations engaging in U.S. elections. That law remains unchanged.

Further, the Federal Election Commission whom has been very clear in defining this what this prohibition means.

Here's what the FEC's regulation states:

A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or

directly or indirectly participate in the decision making

process of any person, such as a corporation, labor

organization, political committee, or political organization

with regard to such person's Federal or non-Federal election-

related activities, such as decisions concerning the making

of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements

in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local

office or decisions concerning the administration of a

political committee.

So the law on this matter is crystal clear. Contrary to what the President, and some of his surrogates in Congress say, foreign persons, corporations, partnerships, associations, organizations or other combination of persons are strictly prohibited from any participation in U.S. elections, just as they were prohibited before the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.

I have explained what the ruling did not do. Now let me explain what the ruling did do.

The Court ruled unconstitutional sections of Federal law that barred corporations and unions from spending their own money to express their views about issues and candidates.

This was the right decision because democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all. As Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, concluded:

Under our law and our tradition it seems stranger than

fiction for our Government to make political speech a crime.

In Citizens United the Court ended the suppression of corporate and union speech.

Another way to look at it is prior to Citizens United, if you were a corporation that owned a media company you could say anything you wanted to 365

days a year without government interference. But if you were a corporation or union that did not own a media company, you couldn't. All this decision did was to level the playing field and strike an important blow for the first amendment and for free speech in our country, a decision that should be applauded by all, but at the very least not misinterpreted.

(Mr. BURRIS assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, a year ago this week, millions of Americans were looking to Washington with the hope that always comes with a new beginning. In the midst of a terrible economic downturn, a new President was vowing to meet our problems head-on. Americans hoped for every success, but in the 12 months that have passed since then, Americans have not seen the improvements they were hoping for. Far from it. Since last January, nearly 3.5 million Americans have lost their jobs and nearly 3 million have lost their homes. Americans are still struggling, and they are looking to Washington for the policies that will right our economic ship.

To their credit, the President and his allies in Congress tried to do something about our economic situation. Unfortunately, their policies missed the mark, and 2009 was another very difficult year. Americans waited patiently for the administration and Congress to implement policies that would create the conditions for creating jobs, growing businesses, and helping struggling middle-class families weather the recession. Instead, they got policies that vastly increased government spending and put a crushing amount of debt onto the Federal credit card. Then Americans looked on in disbelief as the administration spent almost an entire year--an entire year--pursuing a closed-door, partisan health care plan that would have raised their taxes and their health insurance premiums and slashed Medicare for seniors in the middle of a recession.

By the time November came around, Americans had clearly run out of patience--not with the President, whom they like, but with the administration's policies. They rejected a trillion-dollar stimulus bill that was supposed to stop unemployment at 8 percent but did not. They rejected a budget that will double the national debt in 5 years and triple it in 10. And they rejected a health care plan that would have led to higher costs, lower quality, and massive new government spending. The American people have spoken clearly. They want a new policy direction.

This is why some of the comments we have been hearing in the administration about its plans for the year ahead are so distressing. The lesson of the last year should be crystal clear: Americans are not happy with the administration's approach. They are tired of the spending, debt, and government takeovers. They want a step-by-step approach to our problems, not grand government experiments and schemes. Yet some in the administration seem to believe that the message of Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts is something entirely different. They seem to think the voters are frustrated at nothing in particular, that they are just angry in general. The proper response to these elections, the administration seems to think, is to retool its message to make people believe it is finding new ways to help the economy, even as it continues to pursue the exact same policies as before. One of the President's top advisers insisted over the weekend, for example, that the administration will continue to pursue its plan for health care even as it works to retool its message on the economy. This is a clear sign that the administration has not gotten the message; that it has become too attached to its own pet goals; that it is stuck in neutral when the American people are asking it to change direction. And then the administration said over the weekend that Americans will not know what is in the Democratic plan for health care unless and until it is passed. That is precisely the problem. Americans do not want to have to learn about what politicians in Washington are doing to their health care after the fact. They want to know the details before the changes are approved, not later.

Americans are not frustrated in general; they are frustrated with an administration that insists on taking them in a direction they do not want to go and which does not seem to be interested in acknowledging the direction in which Americans actually want to go.

These are some of the signs that the administration has not gotten the message. But it is not too late. Tomorrow night, the President will deliver his State of the Union Address. It is my hope that he deals not in a retooled message but in a changed direction and that he advances it with the same kind of enthusiasm and intensity that he attempted to advance his health care plan.

Here are some of the things the President could do tomorrow night:

First, put the 2,700-page Democratic health care bill on the shelf and leave it there. The best first step we could take in righting our economic ship is to take this job-killing and tax-increasing monstrosity off the table once and for all and move toward the kind of step-by-step approach Americans really want.

Second, declare that taxes will not go up at the end of the year as scheduled for millions of American families and businesses. Even some Democrats are calling on the President to do this. Struggling small businesses are asking themselves whether they can hire new workers. The prospect of a massive tax hike makes it far less likely that they will.

Third, return unused TARP money and put it toward paying down the deficit. Taxpayers who bailed out the banks last year are wondering why their money is still laying around unspent. Money that has come back to the Treasury should be used to pay down the deficit, not used on new spending programs.

Fourth, job programs. The stimulus was sold to the public on the promise that it would hold unemployment at 8 percent. A year later, unemployment is at 10 percent, its highest level in a quarter century. At a time of trillion-dollar deficits, the President should direct unspent stimulus funds to pay down our debts right now, rather than have the money spent on questionable projects 9 years down the road.

Fifth, no more debt. Later this week, the administration, with an assist from Democrats in Congress, plans to increase the amount of money available on the Federal credit card by nearly $2 trillion. In other words, they want to increase the amount of money we can borrow by an amount equivalent to what it cost to pay for the entire Federal budget 10 years ago.

Sixth, explain to the American people how the Federal Government will end its ownership of auto companies, insurance companies, and banks. Americans do not think the U.S. Government should be one of the largest shareholders of GM, Chrysler, and AIG.

Seventh, energy. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest, most efficient sources of energy. The President should commit to expanding it. Until these clean green sites are up and running, he should allow the States to drill for oil and natural gas off their shores, if they want to.

These are just a few concrete things the President could do to show the

American people he is committed to working with both parties to address the problems Americans are most concerned about, such as doing whatever it takes to create jobs and get people who have lost their jobs back to work.

Americans aren't looking for cosmetic proposals. They do not want the administration to push sweeping changes it wants but to nibble around the edges when it comes to changes the American people want. It is time for the White House to show it is listening to the American people. If the President opts for solutions that reflect the real concerns of the American people, if he moves to the middle with commonsense bipartisan ideas on job creation, then he can expect the support of Republicans.

It is not too late. It is not too late to deliver the kind of commonsense reforms Americans want.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Global War on Terror

Mr. President, as the Senate reconvenes in a new calendar year, it is hard not to notice that many of the toughest challenges we face in 2010 have been with us for a long time. Among the toughest and most persistent of these is the ongoing global war on terror. More than 8 years have now passed since September 11, 2001. Yet we are reminded every day of the need to remain as vigilant now as we were in the weeks and months after that terrible day.

This fact was recently brought home to us in a vivid way when a Nigerian-born terrorist attempted to kill nearly 300 innocent people in the skies over Detroit on Christmas Day. What could have been a terrible tragedy became instead an urgent reminder to remain focused--a wake-up call, if you will.

But even before Abdulmutallab boarded the plane, many Americans had already begun to wonder whether we had become too slack over the past year in the fight against terrorism.

And who could blame them? Time and again, the administration has made decisions that suggest a pre-9/11 mindset of prosecution over prevention--decisions which have left most Americans scratching their heads and concluding that some of the administration's priorities are dangerously out of whack. Most Americans did not understand why the administration was in such a rush to close Guantanamo, for example, before it had a plan for dealing with the dangerous detainees who were held there. Most did not see why classified memos detailing interrogation techniques that had saved American lives were made public and thus available to the very people we are trying to keep from harming us. And most recently, most people were shocked again when we treated the Christmas Day bomber not as a potentially rich source of intelligence for stopping future attacks but as a common criminal who needed a lawyer. We should have gotten every bit of information we could have about this man's plans, his connections, and his cronies in al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula. Instead, the administration placed a higher priority on reading him his Miranda rights and on getting him a lawyer.

Even more outrageous is the administration's plan for getting information out of the Christmas Day bomber, offering him a plea bargain and a hope he will talk. These are just some of the signs that when it comes to prosecuting the war on terror, the administration has caused the pendulum to swing too far in the wrong direction.

No one denies a balance must be struck between preserving civil liberties and protecting the homeland. No one wants to sacrifice one for the other. But in many cases, all that is involved is a simple question of judgment. When a judgment call has to be made, our priorities should be clear: Keeping Americans safe should always-- always--win out.

Over the past year, the administration has grappled with these questions. It sought to find the right balance. In some cases, it has gotten it wrong. In others, it has been quite sensible. The President was clear and convincing, for example, when he explained our goals in Afghanistan last December--to deny al-Qaida a safe haven, to reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to control population centers, and to strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take the lead

and take responsibility for Afghanistan's future. The President had it exactly right. But Americans know that in this fight, in the global war on terror, getting the strategy partly right will only lead to partial success. As the attempted Christmas Day bombing showed all too plainly, partial success isn't good enough.

So today I would like to discuss some of my own impressions of how our mission is going in the place where the attacks of September 11, 2001, were launched, and to describe the mission within the broader context of the global war that extends to places such as Yemen and to our own borders because success in one place overseas could easily be undermined by neglect in another, and success in both could still be undermined by neglect at home. We simply cannot prevail in this fight if we treat the various elements of it as separate events or if we fail to restore the proper balance between safety and civil liberties.

As the years wear on, it is easy for some to forget why we are still committing young men and women to fight in far off places such as Afghanistan or why our national security interests demand that we prevail. That is why it is important for us to recall that al-Qaida and other extremists were at war with the United States long before the attacks of 9/11.

The World Trade Center had been attacked 8 full years before the 19 hijackers destroyed it on September 11, 2001. The Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 killed 19 U.S. military personnel and injured hundreds more. Thousands were injured and hundreds were killed, including a dozen Americans, in the East Africa Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998. That same year, Osama bin Laden declared that ``the judgment to kill and fight Americans and their allies, whether civilian or military, is an obligation for every Muslim who is able to do so in any country.'' A year before 9/11, al-Qaida attacked the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and injuring dozens more.

So 9/11 may have been the day we realized the consequences of inaction, but the pattern of attacks leading up to that day is undeniably clear. From the first days after 9/11, our strategy has been the same: to deny al-Qaida and its affiliates sanctuary and to deny them a staging ground from which they could plan or launch another attack on U.S. soil. This is why we resolved shortly after 9/11 to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban which had harbored al-Qaida and its leader Osama bin Laden.

We had early successes in that effort. By November 2001, the Taliban had been driven from Kabul. Soon after that, an international body met to name an interim government in Afghanistan to be led by its current president, Hamid Karzai.

But despite that early success, al-Qaida's senior leadership was able to find a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, and a few years later it had regained enough strength to once again pose a serious threat to the United States. Meanwhile, the Taliban had reestablished its headquarters in Pakistan and gained enough strength as a result of inadequate Afghan security forces and poor governance to return to Afghanistan and to risk success to our mission there.

By last year, the situation had grown so perilous that our then recently appointed top general in Afghanistan, GEN Stanley McChrystal, issued a report stating that our failure to gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of the Taliban within 12 months could make defeating the insurgency impossible. It was largely as a result of that assessment that the President agreed last year to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Earlier this month, I and some of my colleagues had the opportunity to visit Afghanistan and Pakistan to assess the situation on the ground firsthand. Among other things, we saw progress in the crucial southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar. Although still in the early phases, General McChrystal's plan to clear these areas of Taliban, hold terrain, control the population, build Afghan security forces, and establish a viable government for future and long-term stability shows early signs of success, not unlike the kind of success during the surge in Iraq.

The Taliban continues to put up a fight. As recently as last week, Taliban leaders accused NATO forces of defiling the Koran, a charge that led to major protests in Garmsir. This Monday, the Taliban demonstrated its lethality when it launched an attack against the heart of the government in Kabul. But the bottom line is this: Our commitment and that of our partners has given Afghanistan and its government a chance to succeed. While ultimate success is far from certain, every member of our delegation was impressed with the quality of the people we have sent to Afghanistan and with the strategy that General McChrystal has put in place.

Pakistan must do its part. The ultimate success of our mission in Afghanistan depends upon the continued efforts of the Government of Pakistan to fight extremist networks in the tribal areas. Over the last year, Pakistan has waged aggressive campaigns in the Swat Valley and in South Waziristan. After meeting with the Pakistani Army's chief of staff and with Prime Minister Gilani, we concluded they genuinely believe their national interests will be served in defeating the Pakistani Taliban. Still, action against the Quetta Shura, the leadership of the Afghan Taliban harbored just across the border in neighboring Pakistan, isn't likely to occur until the Pakistanis are convinced--convinced--that the United States has the endurance to remain committed in both Pakistan and Afghanistan and to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan as well. In this regard, the leaders we spoke to in both countries were clearly troubled by the Obama administration's announced deadline of July 2011 for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

We saw firsthand on our trip that the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan is difficult, and the situation is fragile. But complicating matters even further is the resilience and determination of al-Qaida and its affiliates, and we must not fail to appreciate all the implications of this. In this regard, the administration showed a shocking lack of common sense when it failed to treat the Christmas Day bomber as an enemy combatant, instead reading him his Miranda rights and giving him a lawyer.

As I said earlier, in my view, the administration has on a number of instances struck the wrong balance over the past year between safety and civil liberties. Its preference for prosecuting a terrorist like the Christmas Day bomber in civilian courts shows a dangerous preoccupation with prosecution over prevention, just as its hasty decision to close Guantanamo showed a preoccupation with symbolism over security.

But whether it is Guantanamo, interrogation memos, or prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts, many of the administration's priorities in this fight appear to be dangerously misplaced. Take the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Here is the man who admits to planning the most catastrophic terrorist attack in U.S. history--nearly 3,000 people dead on our own soil in a single day. Yet once in court, he will enjoy all the rights and privileges of an American citizen. Classified information may be compromised, as it has been many times before in such cases. The consequences are easy to imagine.

Trying KSM in a civilian court makes even less sense in light of the fact the administration has decided to prosecute other foreign terrorists in a military commission, creating a baffling scenario in which those who target innocent people in the homeland are treated better than those who attack a military target overseas.

The administration also needs to ensure that our intelligence professionals and men and women in uniform are free to gather intelligence from detainees wherever they are captured. A U.S. marine assigned to a NATO-led security and development mission in Afghanistan shouldn't have to release or turn over a captured terrorist within 96 hours, as is now the case, nor should the Christmas Day bomber be treated as a common criminal at home when the nation where he met his al-Qaida handlers, Yemen, is actively pursuing al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.

The intelligence community must be able to gather information from detainees in a way that is lawful and which protects American lives. Equilibrium between safety and civil liberties must be restored, and currently

it is not, in my view. A plea bargain for a terrorist who tried to blow a plane out of the sky on Christmas Day? It is wrong to think that al- Qaida would not use a civilian courtroom in New York or a long-term detention facility inside the United States for the same recruiting and propaganda purposes for which they have used other courts and Guantanamo in the past. This fact alone eliminates the administration's only justification for closing Guantanamo--that it was some kind of recruitment tool.

We need a place to send terrorists like the Christmas Day bomber--and that place is not a civilian courtroom or a prison in the Midwest. Once here, these terrorists will enjoy new legal rights, including, quite possibly, the right to be released into our country, as one Federal judge previously ordered with respect to a group of detainees from

Madam President, I thank the majority leader for giving me a chance to make my very brief opening remarks, as I must leave the building shortly.

Mr. President, the Senate's newest Member is coming down from Massachusetts today. We will have a chance to welcome Senator-elect Brown to the Capitol. Obviously, we are delighted to have him.

Senator-elect Brown has captured the attention of the entire country, but he has captured the attention of Massachusetts voters first. The people of Massachusetts sent a very strong message. They were looking for someone who would help change the direction in Washington. They put their hope in the candidate whose views reflected the kind of change they were looking for.

So we welcome Senator-elect Brown to the Senate, and we look forward to working with him to bring about the change that Americans are telling us they want. We need to show them we are listening.

Madam President, yesterday, several members of the administration's national security team testified before the Senate concerning the attempted Christmas Day attack by the Nigerian terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. This testimony was troubling indeed and left some wondering why the administration is subjecting this terrorist to criminal prosecution instead of gaining the valuable intelligence that is needed in our war on al-Qaida.

Admiral Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, stated quite frankly that the Christmas Day bomber should have been questioned by the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group. Blair went on to say that neither he nor other important intelligence officials were even consulted on the matter. This raises several troubling questions: First, why were Miranda rights given to the obvious terrorist after only a brief session of questioning, which predictably ended his cooperation?

Second, at what level of authority was this decision taken to treat him as a criminal defendant instead of an unlawful enemy combatant? Who made that decision?

I asked this question last night of John Brennan, the President's senior counterterrorism adviser, three times, and he refused to answer. I think the Senate is entitled to know precisely who authorized this.

A year ago, the President decided to revise the Nation's interrogation policies and to restrict the CIA's ability to question terrorists. The administration created a High Value Detainee Interrogation Group precisely for the purpose of questioning terrorists. Why wasn't this group brought in once this terrorist was taken into custody?

Americans are going to need to know the answers to those questions.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, first, I welcome everyone back after what I hope was a restful time away from Washington. It is good to be here. I can assure everyone that Republicans are energized and eager to pick up where we left off. There is a lot to do, and we are ready.

The news of the day, of course, is that we will soon be welcoming a new Senator into our ranks. It has been a long time--a very long time-- since the people of Massachusetts sent a Republican to the Senate. So I congratulate Senator-elect Scott Brown on his decisive victory last night.

I had a chance to speak with him last night. I think it was truly a remarkable turnout and decision on the part of the people of that State.

There is a reason the Nation was focused on this race. The American people have made it abundantly clear they are more interested in shrinking unemployment than expanding government. They are tired of bailouts. They are tired of government spending more than ever at a time when most people are spending less. They do not want the government taking over health care. They made that abundantly clear last night in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This is why Americans are electing good Republican candidates who they hope will reverse a year-long Democratic trend of spending too much, borrowing too much, and taxing too much. The voters have spoken. They want a course correction. We should listen to them.

Today, we will have a chance to show we have gotten the message when we take up legislation that would raise the national debt limit. The reason we are being asked to raise the limit on the national credit card is clear. It is because the majority has spent the past year spending money we do not have on stimulus bills that do not stimulate the economy, on budgets that double the debt in 5 years and triples it in 10. We need to move in a new direction--a dramatically new direction. That is the message of Virginia. That is the message of New Jersey. That is the message of Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the entirely appropriate remarks the majority leader has made about all of the people who work here at the Capitol at this difficult and intense time that we have been through. We thank you very much for your outstanding service.

It is early and I will be brief. The most obvious problem with the bill before us is that it doesn't do what it was supposed to do. The one test for any bill is whether it will lower costs. This bill fails that test. It is also clear that even many of the people on this side who are going to support this bill don't like it; otherwise, the Democratic leaders wouldn't have had such a tough time rounding up the votes; otherwise, Democratic leaders would not have had to have votes in the middle of the night or at the crack of dawn or over the weekend or even during a blizzard; otherwise, they wouldn't be rushing it through Congress on Christmas Eve, the first time this body has had a vote the day before Christmas in more than a century.

This debate was supposed to produce a bill that reformed health care in America. Instead, we are left with party-line votes in the middle of the night, a couple of sweetheart deals to get it over the finish line, and a truly outraged public. A problem they were told would be fixed wasn't. I guarantee you that the people who voted for this bill are going to get an earful when they finally get home for the first time since Thanksgiving. They know there is widespread opposition to this monstrosity.

I want to assure you, Mr. President, this fight isn't over. In fact, this fight is long from over. My colleagues and I will work to stop this bill from becoming law. That is the clear will of the American people and we are going to continue to fight on their behalf.

Mr. President, let me add, to my good friend the majority leader, he and I have an excellent relationship. We speak a number of times in the course of every day and have no animosity whatsoever. We are working on an agreement that will give certainty to the way to end this session. Hopefully, the two of us together can be recommending something that makes sense for both sides in the not-too- distant future.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma. I will be very brief.

Madam President, Americans woke up yesterday stunned to read that Democrats had voted to end debate on the latest version of this massive bill while they were sleeping. They will be stunned again when they learn about this second early-morning vote to advance a bill that most of them oppose. Americans are right to be stunned because this bill is a mess. And so was the process that was used to get it over the finish line.

Americans are outraged by the last-minute, closed-door, sweetheart deals that were made to gain the slimmest margin for passage of a bill that is all about their health care. Once the Sun came up, Americans could see all the deals that were tucked inside this grab bag, and they do not like what they are finding. After all, common sense dictates that anytime Congress rushes, Congress stumbles. It is whether Senator so-and-so got a sweet enough deal to sign off on it. Well, Senator so- and-so might have gotten his deal, but the American people have not signed off.

Public opinion is clear. What have we become as a body if we are not even listening to the people we serve? What have we become if we are more concerned about a political victory or some hollow call to history than we are about actually solving the problems the American people sent us here to address? This bill was supposed to make health care less expensive. It does not. Incredibly, it makes it more expensive.

Few people could have imagined that this is how this debate would end--with a couple of cheap deals hidden in the folds of this 2,700- page bill and rushed early-morning votes. But that is where we are. Americans are asking themselves: How did this happen? How did a great national debate that was supposed to lead to a major bipartisan reform lead to a bag full of cheap legislative tricks inside a $2.3 trillion, 2,733-page bill that actually makes health care costs go up?

This legislation will reshape our Nation in ways its supporters will come to regret. But they cannot say they were not warned. The verdict of the American people has been clear for months: They do not want it.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Oklahoma, and I yield the floor.

I thank my friend from Oklahoma.

One thing about rushing, not only is there a potential violation of the provision the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned, but we are learning more about this bill every day as we scrub it and try to understand it and figure out what all is in it. All of that, of course, is made more possible by rushing things through in sort of an expedited, hurried fashion to get it by the American people before Christmas in the hopes they will not notice.