Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2010 will ensure that this system will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will take effect in January 2011, so it will first apply in the 2012 presidential election.

It is important to note that the cost of this bill is completely offset by reforms to the federal irrigation subsidy program. Friends of the Earth in its 2003 Green Scissors report estimated that these provisions would save at least $4.4 billion over 10 years, which is more than sufficient to cover the estimated cost of this bill--$1.1 billion over 4 years.

The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required in Buckley. Until the 2008 election, every major party nominee for President since 1976 had participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election as well.

In the 2004 election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee, John Kerry, opted out of the system for the presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but accepted the general election grant.

In 2008, several of the leading candidates for President, including President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Senator McCain and Governors Huckabee and Romney, did not participate in the primary system. While Senator McCain accepted the public grant for the general election, President Obama became the first major party candidate not to participate in the general election public funding system.

It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries has become less practicable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out will increase until the system collapses from disuse.

In the post-Citizens United world, the likelihood of general election candidates participating in the system if it is not changed is greatly reduced as well. The current system completely prohibits private fundraising, requiring candidates to fund their campaigns solely with the general election grant, which was $84.1 million in 2008. Senator McCain, who accepted the grant, raised approximately $220 million for the primaries in 2008. President Obama, who did not participate in either the primary or general election public funding system, raised a total of approximately $746 million for the entire 2008 campaign. The public funding system is clearly not keeping pace with the current cost of campaigns or the ability of candidates to raise private money.

This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by participants in the system, experts on the presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and most important, it eliminates all spending limits in the law for both the primary and the general elections. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates. It increases the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1 and provides up to $100 million in matching funds for a participating candidate in the primaries and $200 million in total grants for the general election.

In exchange for the much more generous public grants provided by the bill, participating candidates are required to focus their fundraising on small donors. First, they must agree to accept contributions of only up to $1,000 in the primaries. The current individual contribution limit, established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, is $2,400. In addition, only contributors of $200 or less can have their contributions matched. Since each $200 contribution will yield $800 in matching funds, there will be a great incentive for candidates to seek out small donors. The 2008 campaign saw an explosion of small donations to the campaigns of both parties. This bill should help promote and extend this trend, which is a positive development for our democracy.

Under the bill, for the first time, matching funds will also be part of the general election system. In addition to a $50 million grant, general election candidates can receive up to $150 million in matching funds, again based on a 4:1 match of contributions of $200 or less. General election candidates can also raise contributions of up to $500 from other donors whose contributions will not be matched. General election candidates, therefore, will be able to spend up to $200 million in public funds plus whatever they can raise in contributions of $500 or less. Even in light of the specter of corporate spending permitted by Citizens United, these should be adequate resources for a campaign that lasts only a few months.

One very important provision of the bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries.

This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election

year over the life of the public financing system. This has led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. By eliminating spending limits in the primaries, the bill makes sure that candidates can continue raising and spending the money they need to remain competitive. In addition, the political parties will be permitted to spend up to $50 million coordinated with their candidates, an increase from the current limit of $15 million.

Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law.

The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting six months before the date of the first primary or caucus, which is approximately 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grants for the general election-- the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grants are released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart.

The bill also prohibits Federal elected officials and candidates from soliciting soft money for use in funding the party conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. The bundling provision builds on a provision contained in ethics and lobbying reform legislation enacted in 2007. It requires presidential candidates to disclosure all bundlers of $50,000 or more.

Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I will ask to be printed in the Record, following my statement.

The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. The current President raised and spent more money than any other candidate in history. But he has a history of supporting the presidential public funding system, and he recognizes the importance of reforming and updating the current system. I am optimistic that he will endorse this bill, and will participate in the system if he runs for reelection.

Fixing the presidential public financing system will cost money. The total cost of the system, based on data from the 2008 elections, is projected to be around $1.1 billion over the 4-year election cycle. Though this is a large number, it is actually a very small investment to make to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act to ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone of the Watergate reforms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I will reintroduce a bill to repair and strengthen the presidential public financing system. The Presidential Funding Act of 2010 will ensure that this system will continue to fulfill its promise in the 21st century. The bill will take effect in January 2011, so it will first apply in the 2012 presidential election.

It is important to note that the cost of this bill is completely offset by reforms to the federal irrigation subsidy program. Friends of the Earth in its 2003 Green Scissors report estimated that these provisions would save at least $4.4 billion over 10 years, which is more than sufficient to cover the estimated cost of this bill--$1.1 billion over 4 years.

The presidential public financing system was put into place in the wake of the Watergate scandals as part of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. It was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. The system, of course, is voluntary, as the Supreme Court required in Buckley. Until the 2008 election, every major party nominee for President since 1976 had participated in the system for the general election and, prior to 2000, every major party nominee had participated in the system for the primary election as well.

In the 2004 election, President Bush and two Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and the eventual nominee, John Kerry, opted out of the system for the presidential primaries. President Bush and Senator Kerry elected to take the taxpayer-funded grant in the general election. President Bush also opted out of the system for the Republican primaries in 2000 but accepted the general election grant.

In 2008, several of the leading candidates for President, including President Obama, Secretary Clinton, Senator McCain and Governors Huckabee and Romney, did not participate in the primary system. While Senator McCain accepted the public grant for the general election, President Obama became the first major party candidate not to participate in the general election public funding system.

It is unfortunate that the matching funds system for the primaries has become less practicable. The system protects the integrity of the electoral process by allowing candidates to run viable campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors. The system has worked well in the past, and it is worth repairing so that it can work in the future. If we don't repair it, the pressures on candidates to opt out will increase until the system collapses from disuse.

In the post-Citizens United world, the likelihood of general election candidates participating in the system if it is not changed is greatly reduced as well. The current system completely prohibits private fundraising, requiring candidates to fund their campaigns solely with the general election grant, which was $84.1 million in 2008. Senator McCain, who accepted the grant, raised approximately $220 million for the primaries in 2008. President Obama, who did not participate in either the primary or general election public funding system, raised a total of approximately $746 million for the entire 2008 campaign. The public funding system is clearly not keeping pace with the current cost of campaigns or the ability of candidates to raise private money.

This bill makes changes to both the primary and general election public financing system to address the weaknesses and problems that have been identified by participants in the system, experts on the presidential election financing process, and an electorate that is increasingly dismayed by the influence of money in politics. First and most important, it eliminates all spending limits in the law for both the primary and the general elections. This should make the system much more viable for serious candidates facing opponents who are capable of raising significant sums outside the system. The bill also makes available substantially more public money for participating candidates. It increases the match of small contributions from 1:1 to 4:1 and provides up to $100 million in matching funds for a participating candidate in the primaries and $200 million in total grants for the general election.

In exchange for the much more generous public grants provided by the bill, participating candidates are required to focus their fundraising on small donors. First, they must agree to accept contributions of only up to $1,000 in the primaries. The current individual contribution limit, established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, is $2,400. In addition, only contributors of $200 or less can have their contributions matched. Since each $200 contribution will yield $800 in matching funds, there will be a great incentive for candidates to seek out small donors. The 2008 campaign saw an explosion of small donations to the campaigns of both parties. This bill should help promote and extend this trend, which is a positive development for our democracy.

Under the bill, for the first time, matching funds will also be part of the general election system. In addition to a $50 million grant, general election candidates can receive up to $150 million in matching funds, again based on a 4:1 match of contributions of $200 or less. General election candidates can also raise contributions of up to $500 from other donors whose contributions will not be matched. General election candidates, therefore, will be able to spend up to $200 million in public funds plus whatever they can raise in contributions of $500 or less. Even in light of the specter of corporate spending permitted by Citizens United, these should be adequate resources for a campaign that lasts only a few months.

One very important provision of the bill ties the primary and general election systems together and requires candidates to make a single decision on whether to participate. Candidates who opt out of the primary system and decide to rely solely on private money cannot return to the system for the general election. And candidates must commit to participate in the system in the general election if they want to receive Federal matching funds in the primaries.

This bill also addresses what some have called the ``gap'' between the primary and general election seasons. Presumptive presidential nominees have emerged earlier in the election

year over the life of the public financing system. This has led to some nominees being essentially out of money between the time that they nail down the nomination and the convention where they are formally nominated and become eligible for the general election grant. For a few cycles, soft money raised by the parties filled in that gap, but the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 fortunately has now closed that loophole. By eliminating spending limits in the primaries, the bill makes sure that candidates can continue raising and spending the money they need to remain competitive. In addition, the political parties will be permitted to spend up to $50 million coordinated with their candidates, an increase from the current limit of $15 million.

Obviously, these changes make this a more generous system. So the bill also makes the requirement for qualifying more difficult. To be eligible for matching funds, a candidate must raise $25,000 in matchable contributions--up to $200 for each donor--in at least 20 States. That is five times the threshold under current law.

The bill also makes a number of changes in the system to reflect the changes in our presidential races over the past several decades. For one thing, it makes matching funds available starting six months before the date of the first primary or caucus, which is approximately 6 months earlier than is currently the case. For another, it sets a single date for release of the public grants for the general election-- the Friday before Labor Day. This addresses an inequity in the current system, under which the general election grants are released after each nominating convention, which can be several weeks apart.

The bill also prohibits Federal elected officials and candidates from soliciting soft money for use in funding the party conventions and requires presidential candidates to disclose bundled contributions. The bundling provision builds on a provision contained in ethics and lobbying reform legislation enacted in 2007. It requires presidential candidates to disclosure all bundlers of $50,000 or more.

Additional provisions, and those I have discussed in summary form here, are explained in a section-by-section analysis of the bill that I will ask to be printed in the Record, following my statement.

The purpose of this bill is to improve the campaign finance system, not to advance one party's interests. The current President raised and spent more money than any other candidate in history. But he has a history of supporting the presidential public funding system, and he recognizes the importance of reforming and updating the current system. I am optimistic that he will endorse this bill, and will participate in the system if he runs for reelection.

Fixing the presidential public financing system will cost money. The total cost of the system, based on data from the 2008 elections, is projected to be around $1.1 billion over the 4-year election cycle. Though this is a large number, it is actually a very small investment to make to protect our democracy and preserve the integrity of our presidential elections. The American people do not want to see a return to the pre-Watergate days of candidates entirely beholden to private donors. We must act to ensure the fairness of our elections and the confidence of our citizens in the process by repairing the cornerstone of the Watergate reforms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I am pleased to support the efforts of my colleagues to call attention to the refusal of Republicans in the Senate to allow confirmation votes on judicial nominees. We have all heard the numbers only 9 circuit and 27 district judges confirmed so far in this Congress, 7 circuit and 14 district judges now awaiting floor action, with 15 of those nominees having been reported by the Judiciary Committee before the end of May. This is an inexcusable blockade of justice in America for wholly political reasons, and it needs to stop.

I am pleased also to join the senior Senator from my State, Mr. Kohl, in specifically seeking consent to debate and vote on Justice Louis Butler's nomination to be a U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Wisconsin. Justice Butler, who was the first African American to serve on Wisconsin's Supreme Court, was first reported by the Judiciary Committee on December 3, 2009. He has essentially been waiting for the full Senate to take up his nomination for more than 7 months.

Justice Butler is the product of a system for picking Federal judges and U.S. attorneys in our State that has been used since the late 1970s. A nominating commission interviews and considers applicants and presents a slate of candidates to the Senators. We then send our recommendations to the President drawn solely from the commission- approved slate. This process has yielded highly qualified nominees under both Republican and Democratic presidents, and the nominees have had the support of both Republican and Democratic Senators.

Justice Butler clearly has the experience and the qualifications needed to serve with distinction as a U.S. District Court judge. First, he has experience as a judge on both the trial court and appellate court levels in Wisconsin. He understands the difference between following precedent and making precedent. Handling criminal trials is probably the biggest job of a Federal trial judge, and Justice Butler has a great deal of criminal experience both as a judge and as a public defender in his early days as a practicing lawyer. He is well versed in Wisconsin law, which as we know is often applied in diversity jurisdiction cases in the Federal courts.

Justice Butler is widely admired for his intellect and his judicial temperament. In 1997, Milwaukee Magazine named him the top municipal judge in the city. He has been a law professor. In short, he has a depth of experience that is unusual for a nominee to the district court.

Justice Butler has been a trailblazer in our State. As I mentioned, he was the first African American to serve on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and he would be the first African American to be a judge on the Western District. He is a man of great distinction and achievement.

Justice Butler is a thoughtful and conscientious judge. I know I will not agree with every decision he makes, just as I do not necessarily agree with everything he has said or done thus far. But I know he will be conscious of the judicial role, and that he will make his decisions based on the facts and the law and do his very best to carry out his responsibilities with dignity and care, as he has done throughout his career.

Now I understand that Justice Butler's nomination is opposed by some Members of the Senate and a number of outside organizations. The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted against the nomination. They have every right to do so, and I respect their positions. I believe the arguments against him are misguided and unfair. But I am prepared to have that debate on the Senate floor and live with the result, if only the Republicans will allow the debate to take place.

It is time for the delay of Justice Butler's nomination and the other nominations that have been pending for months to end. Let's have a debate and a vote. I thank Mr. Kohl and my other colleagues for shining a spotlight on this issue, and I hope we can look forward to debating and voting on the pending judicial nominations soon. Such delay, particularly for a district court nominee, is unprecedented. I urge my colleagues to consider Justice Butler's nomination forthwith.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I strongly support the DISCLOSE Act and I believe the Senate should be allowed to consider it. I am pleased to see this bill get such strong support from my colleagues on the Democratic side, and I urge my Republican colleagues to think long and hard before blocking it even from coming to the floor. I have a long history of bipartisan work on campaign finance issues. I am not interested in campaign finance legislation that has a partisan effect. This bill is fair and evenhanded. It deserves the support of Senators from both parties.

As the name suggests, the central goal of this bill is disclosure. It aims to make sure that when faced with a barrage of election-related advertising funded by corporations, which the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case has made possible, the American people have the information they need to understand who is really behind those ads. That information is essential to being able to thoughtfully exercise the most important right in a democracy--the right to vote.

It is no secret that Senator Schumer and I, and all of the original cosponsors of the bill, were deeply disappointed by the Citizens United decision. We don't agree with the Court's theory that the first amendment rights of corporations, which can't vote or hold elected office, are equivalent to those of citizens. And we believe that the decision will harm our democracy. I, for one, very much hope that the Supreme Court will one day realize the mistake it made and overturn it.

But the Supreme Court made the decision and we in the Senate, along with the country, have to live with it. The intent of the DISCLOSE Act is not to try to overturn that decision or challenge it. It is to address the consequences of the decision within the confines of the Court's holdings. Congress has a responsibility to survey the wreckage left or threatened by the Supreme Court's ruling and do whatever it can constitutionally to repair that damage or try to prevent it.

In Citizens United, the Court ruled that corporations could not constitutionally be prohibited from engaging in campaign related speech. But, with only one dissenting Justice, the Court also specifically upheld applying disclosure requirements to corporations. The Court stated:

[P]rompt disclosure of expenditures can provide

shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold

corporations and elected officials accountable for their

positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether

their corporation's political speech advances the

corporation's interest in making profits, and citizens can

see whether elected officials are ``in the pocket'' of so-

called moneyed interests.

The Court also explained that disclosure is very much consistent with free speech:

The First Amendment protects political speech; and

disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the

speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This

transparency enables the electorate to make informed

decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and

messages.

The Court also made clear that corporate advertisers can be required to include disclaimers to identify themselves in their ads. It specifically reaffirmed the part of the McConnell v. FEC decision that held that such requirements are constitutional.

The DISCLOSE Act simply builds on disclosure and disclaimer requirements that are already in the law and that the Court has said do not violate the first amendment. For years, opponents of campaign finance reform have argued that all that is needed is disclosure. Well, in a very short time we will find out whether they were serious, because that is what this bill is all about.

If the Senate is allowed to proceed to the bill, there will be time to discuss its provisions in more detail, but let me comment on one provision that has caused controversy, which was added in the House-- the exception for large, longstanding groups, including the National Rifle Association.

I am not a fan of exceptions to legislation of this kind. I would prefer a bill, like the one we introduced, that does not contain this exception. But the fact is that the kinds of groups that are covered by the exception are not the kinds of groups that this bill is mostly aimed at. Knowing the identity of individual large donors to the NRA when it runs its ads is not providing much useful information to the public. Everyone knows who the NRA is and what it stands for. You may like or dislike this group's message, but you don't need to know who its donors are to evaluate that message.

The same cannot be said about new organizations that are forming as we speak to collect corporate donations and run attack ads against candidates. One example is a new group called American Crossroads. It has apparently pledged to raise $50 million to run ads in the upcoming election. Can any of my colleagues tell me what this group is and what it stands for? Don't the American people have a right to know that, and wouldn't the identity of the funders provide useful information about the group's agenda and what it hopes to accomplish by pumping so much money into elections? Even Citizens United, the group that brought the case that has led us to this point, is not known to most people. Why shouldn't the American people know who has bankrolled that group, if it's

going to run ads and try to convince people to vote a certain way?

Disclosure is the way we make this crucial information available to the public. But if a group is around for 10 years, has members in all 50 States, and receives only a small portion of its budget from corporations or unions, there is less reason for the kind of detailed information that the DISCLOSE Act requires. So while I would prefer that this exception wasn't in the bill, I understand why the House felt it was necessary, and I don't think it undermines the bill's purpose or makes it fundamentally unfair.

Most of the complaints about the DISCLOSE Act are coming from interests that want to take advantage of one part of the Citizens United decision--the part that allows corporate spending on elections for the first time in over 100 years--and at the same time pretend that the other part of the decision--the part upholding disclosure requirements--doesn't exist. But the law doesn't work that way. As the old saying goes, ``you can't have your cake and eat it too.''

Once again, I very much appreciate the leadership of the Senator from New York and look forward to working with him and all my colleagues to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed.

Mr. President, I voted to end debate on the House amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill because that amendment addresses important domestic priorities for Wisconsin and this country without adding a penny to the deficit. The amendment provides $10 billion to help school districts around the country facing funding shortfalls due to the ongoing recession, all of it paid for. It also provides almost $5 billion in fully offset funding to help ensure that the millions of low income students who receive Pell grants do not see reductions in their awards.

The House amendment also includes a provision to give public safety employees, like firefighters and police officers, collective bargaining rights. While Wisconsin and other States already protect public safety employees' collective bargaining rights, there are still several States that do not. Police officers, firefighters, and other public safety officers are on the front lines of protecting our communities and we should ensure that these hard working professionals have the ability to bargain for better wages and working conditions.

However, I continue to oppose funding for a massive, open-ended war in Afghanistan. This war funding will add tens of billions to our deficit without contributing to our national security.

Mr. President, I wish to express my concern about the future of the Kimberley Process, the global voluntary initiative to stem the flow of conflict diamonds. Last week, key members of the Kimberley Process, including governments, industry representatives, and civil society groups, met in St. Petersburg to break the deadlock over whether Zimbabwe should be certified to export its diamonds. A year ago, a review mission of the Kimberley Process traveled to Zimbabwe and documented extensive smuggling of diamonds and abuses against civilians by police and army forces at diamond sites. This rightly led to Zimbabwe's suspension from the process. However, Zimbabwe has threatened to continue with its exports regardless, and there has been a push by some Kimberley Process members to reinstate its certification.

Last week's meeting resulted in an agreement allowing Zimbabwe to export a limited number of diamonds on the condition that a new Kimberley Process Review Mission is permitted to return to the country and monitor conditions. This may be a workable agreement on paper, but it can only succeed with the good faith efforts of all parties, not least the Government of Zimbabwe. I am disappointed that members of the Kimberley Process did not take a stronger stand against certifying Zimbabwe's diamonds for export. Without proof that the government in question has changed the conditions that resulted in suspension, granting certification may be undermining the core components of the process. The onus should be on a government to prove such change has occurred before it is reinstated, not after. Now if this agreement is not implemented, I worry

that it will be a significant blow to the credibility of the process.

Zimbabwe is not the only country raising issues that threaten the credibility of the Kimberley Process. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that there continue to be abuses and killings by soldiers and private security guards in Angola around diamond mines. Angola is reportedly the world's fifth-largest diamond producer in terms of overall value. Meanwhile, the United Nations Expert Group on Cote D'Ivoire has reported for years on how groups in northern Cote D'Ivoire continue to extract and smuggle diamonds through neighboring countries in violation of UN sanctions. Diamond smuggling is also reportedly rampant in Venezuela, while the government there continues to evade the Kimberley Process. Across these countries and many others, weak government controls and limited enforcement options are enabling illicit diamonds to continue to enter the legitimate trade.

The inability of the Kimberley Process to effectively address these problems has exposed significant loopholes within the process. To begin with, the Kimberley Process defines ``conflict diamonds'' as ``rough diamonds used by rebel movements or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments.'' While this definition may have made sense in light of the civil wars in countries such as Sierra Leone and Liberia, it does not capture abuses and violence perpetrated today by government forces in diamond-producing areas around the world. In addition, the process lacks a clear, agreed-upon approach for dealing with cases of noncompliance like Venezuela or Zimbabwe. As we move into the 10th year of Kimberley's existence, we need to take a serious look at how we can best ensure the certification scheme has real power to investigate, monitor, and curb the illegal flow of diamonds, including ensuring serious consequences when a country does not live up to its commitments.

Since its inception, I have strongly supported the Kimberley Process as a vehicle to stop the trade in conflict diamonds and protect consumers and legitimate diamond producers from unwittingly participating in abuses. And the Kimberley Process has achieved a great deal in this respect, despite being a voluntary process and thereby having obvious limitations. But now I strongly believe we need to see the Kimberley Process recommit to its human rights agenda at the same time that it deals with the technical and procedural challenges that hamper its effectiveness. We still have a long way to go in curbing the flow of conflict diamonds and ensuring they do not make their way into our markets.

For these reasons, I believe we must look seriously at the effectiveness of the Kimberley Process and consider revamping its framework so it has real teeth. Doing so will require strong leadership, and I believe the United States as the world's largest consumer of diamonds and a key player in the creation of the process is well positioned to provide that leadership. Senator Leahy and I have urged the Obama administration to put the United States forward to be vice-chair of the Kimberley Process for 2011 and thus chair in 2012. It is in our national interest to have a strong Kimberley Process, and it is a critical moment for the United States to exhibit leadership to that end.

Mr. President, I join President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and people around the world in condemning the horrific bombings in Uganda last Sunday. These attacks killed scores of innocent people and wounded many others who had peacefully gathered to watch the World Cup final.

I was particularly saddened to learn that Nate Henn, an American who worked as a volunteer with Invisible Children to help children affected by war in Uganda's northern region, was among those murdered in this cowardly act. I have worked closely with members of the Invisible Children team to bring attention to the atrocities committed by the Lord's Resistance Army, and I know their passion and dedication. I offer my deepest condolences to the Henn family and the whole Invisible Children family, as well as to all the other victims and their families.

The United States has close ties and a strong working partnership with the people and Government of Uganda, and we stand with them in this difficult moment. I strongly support efforts by the U.S. Government to assist Ugandan authorities to investigate these attacks and bring the perpetrators to justice. And given the news of another attempted attack on Tuesday, we should also help the government take enhanced security measures.

At the same time though, we should encourage the government to avoid any actions that could be seen as broadly targeting Somalis or the Muslim community more generally in Uganda. These communities in Uganda have not been known for violent or extremist activity in the past, and it would be counterproductive to alienate them. They should be allies in seeking to identify and apprehend those individuals behind these heinous attacks.

Al Shebaab, the Somali terrorist group whose leaders have links to al-Qaida, has claimed responsibility for this attack. Al Shebaab has been threatening for months to carry out attacks in Kenya, Uganda, and Burundi, and if their claim is true, this would be the first time that they have carried out a major attack outside Somalia's borders. It would underscore the threat that this terrorist group poses not only to neighboring countries but throughout Africa and potentially even to the United States.

For years, I have drawn attention to the continuing conflict in Somalia and its direct ramifications for our national security. As I mentioned, al Shebaab's leadership has links to al-Qaida and has indicated a desire to work with al-Qaida affiliates worldwide, particularly al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula in Yemen. In addition and perhaps even more disconcerting, al Shebaab has recruited a number of Americans to travel to the region and fight. In October 2008, a Somali- American blew himself up in Somalia as part of a coordinated attack by al Shebaab. The Justice Department has since brought terrorist charges against more than a dozen people for recruiting and raising funds for Americans to fight with al Shebaab.

These developments have not gone unnoticed by our national security leaders, and the Obama administration has rightly put greater focus on Somalia. But our policy toward the country still lacks a strategic, long-term vision, and sufficient resources. The Obama administration is providing some support to the Transitional Federal Government and to the AU peacekeeping force in Mogadishu, but this support has done little to change the fundamental dynamics of the situation. We need to go back to the drawing board and develop a strategy that directly targets the conflicts and conditions that are bolstering al Shebaab and, by extension, al-Qaida. That strategy may entail greater support for the TFG and AMISOM, but we may also need to explore alternative options.

To carry out such a strategy, we need a diplomatic effort equal to the challenges we face in Somalia. We need an increased, strengthened team with the necessary resources, access, and mandate to engage with actors in Somalia and across the wider region. I have called on the President and Secretary of State to appoint a senior envoy to help oversee such a diplomatic effort toward Somalia. Such an envoy could also advance much needed public diplomacy efforts to address the high level of suspicion and resentment with which many Somalis continue to view the United States. And finally, this person could help ensure that we are connecting the dots among all the other countries affected by the Somalia crisis and al Shebaab.

Mr. President, there are no easy or quick solutions to Somalia's troubles, and attempts by external actors to impose solutions have failed. But as the tragic events in Uganda this week should make clear, the current situation in Somalia is intolerable--for the region and the international community, not to mention the Somali people who continue to suffer one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. We cannot afford to just continue with our current halfhearted efforts and hope for the best. Working with our regional partners and others in the international community, we need to get serious about a new push for peace and stability in Somalia.

Mr. President, I join all Americans in mourning the passing of Senator Robert C. Byrd. For more than five decades, Senator Robert Byrd served his home State, his beloved West Virginia, with a dedication that is unsurpassed in our Nation's history.

Senator Byrd was legendary for that commitment to his State, for his outstanding service as both the Senate's majority and minority leader, and for his staunch defense of the U.S. Constitution throughout his many years of public service.

When I arrived in the Senate, Senator Byrd was in the midst of his sixth term, President pro tempore of the Senate, chairman of the Appropriations Committee and already a giant of the institution. It was an honor to work beside him in this body.

Senator Byrd was the longest serving Member of Congress in our Nation's history, elected to an unprecedented ninth term in the Senate in 2006. It was a long road from his humble beginnings in rural West Virginia to his long and distinguished service here. Along the way, Senator Byrd's life was characterized by hard work and a steely determination.

And of all the things he was determined to do, perhaps the most significant was his determination to get an education. Senator Byrd prized education, and fought to get one for himself despite difficult odds. That long effort culminated in Senator Byrd earning his law degree, after 10 years of night classes as he served in Congress by day. He was 46 years old when he graduated, and President John F. Kennedy presented him with the diploma.

He shared that love of learning as a champion of continuing education, and through the establishment of the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program, which provides scholarships to high school seniors who show promise of continued excellence in postsecondary education.

Senator Byrd was dedicated to the Senate and served an invaluable role as a historian of the institution. He wrote a distinguished multivolume history of the Senate, and also authored several other books. In fact when I drafted my proposed constitutional amendment on Senate vacancies, I consulted one of his volumes on Senate history. He had written a chapter on the 17th amendment to the Constitution that was very helpful in putting the issue of Senate vacancies in a historical context.

As a student of Senate history, both the U.S. Senate and the Roman Senate, he was also a passionate defender of the powers of the legislative branch. One would expect no less of a man so devoted to our Constitution. Senator Byrd was eloquent as he spoke about the need to stand up for our Constitution and its principles here in the Senate, and faithfully carried a copy of the Constitution with him every day. He was very proud of his efforts to encourage students to learn more about this document and our great democracy.

In Senator Byrd's lifetime of leadership, he worked on so many important issues. As the Senate's majority leader, he helped to lead the fight against the undue influence of money in politics in an effort with then-Senator David Boren of Oklahoma. Together they sponsored campaign finance legislation and worked to pass it in what has been described as ``one of the most extraordinary exhibitions of perseverance on the Senate floor, as Byrd led the Senate through eight unsuccessful votes to end a filibuster.'' While that legislation stalled, it was one of the efforts that paved the way for later reforms, and I am grateful for his efforts.

I respected him for that, and for so many of the principled stands he took during our service together, including his opposition to the Iraq war. He brought tremendous wisdom and insight to our work here and I know how much those gifts will be missed.

Robert C. Byrd was a man who sought to learn every day of his life, and in turn taught all of us a great deal. He taught us about our nation's history, about the people he represented, and about the institution of the Senate he loved. While Senator Byrd's passing is a loss for the nation, his legacy of innumerable achievements will live on for many, many years to come. My thoughts are with his family and many friends today.

Mr. President, the National Security Strategy released last month rightly states:

[d]ue to increased economic growth and political stability,

individual nations are increasingly taking on powerful

regional and global roles and changing the landscapes of

international cooperation. To achieve a just and sustainable

order that advances our shared security and prosperity, we

are, therefore, deepening our partnerships with emerging

powers and encouraging them to play a greater role in

strengthening international norms and advancing shared

interests.

The strategy goes on to note that expanding our partnerships with emerging powers includes a number of African nations, specifically South Africa. Indeed, I have great respect for South Africa's leadership on the continent and internationally and am glad that we are seeking to deepen our bilateral relationship. From peace and security to climate change to nuclear nonproliferation, we should continue to look for areas where we can team up with the South Africans.

I would also like to highlight another emerging power in Sub-Saharan Africa that we should not ignore: Angola. Many of my colleagues will recall the brutal civil war that devastated Angola. In my first trip as a Senator to Africa, in 1994, I traveled with Senator Reid and Senator Paul Simon to Angola to observe the tragic consequences of this conflict. Decades of war left an estimated 1 million people dead, a third of the country's population displaced, and millions of landmines littered throughout the countryside.

Yet since the war ended in 2002, Angolans have made tremendous strides to secure the peace and rebuild their country. According to a recent UNICEF study, since 2002 the percentage of children attending primary school has increased from 56 to 76 percent and infant mortality has fallen by 22 percent. At the same time, Angola's economy has registered double-digit GDP growth over recent years, mostly driven by increasing oil production. Angola's future growth prospects, however, are more diverse than just oil. According to the September 15, 2009, New York Times article, ``Angola is poised to become a hub of liquefied natural gas and diamond exports.''

With its economic growth and stability, Angola is also poised to play a greater role on regional, continental, and international issues. It has already become a major player in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, and although it is not a member of the G-20, President Dos Santos has been invited to some G-20 meetings. Angola has also become involved in critical issues relating to the Gulf of Guinea, which sits to its north. It supported the launch of the Gulf of Guinea Commission in 2006 to resolve maritime disputes and ensure regional cooperation and hosted a summit for heads of the state of the commission in 2008. Finally, Angola has the potential to play a much more active future role on issues facing the Southern African Development Community, SADC.

For all these reasons, the United States has a strong interest in deepening and broadening our relationship with Angola. Secretary Clinton's visit to the country last year--in which she became the first U.S. Secretary of State to stay overnight in the country--was a major step to that end. She committed to developing a ``comprehensive strategic partnership'' with Angola and to expanding our engagement in the areas of trade, agriculture, health, and education.

To follow through on this commitment, we now need to ensure that our Embassy in Luanda has the necessary programs and tools to pursue such a partnership. We need to ensure there are sufficient incentives and encouragement to attract Foreign Service officers to Angola given the inordinately high cost of living and other hardships. And we should try to ensure that we have the right staff, including representatives from other agencies that can bring expertise on issues of commerce and agriculture.

But expanding our engagement with Angola should not mean ignoring or downplaying troubling issues of human rights and governance. In fact, it should be quite the opposite; we need to actively encourage reform in these important areas if we are going to pursue a truly comprehensive and long-term partnership with Angola.

According to the State Department's 2009 Human Rights Report for Angola, ``The government's human rights record remained poor, and there were numerous, serious problems.'' Last weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that there continue to be abuses and killings by soldiers and private security guards around diamond mines in Angola. The international community should investigate these reports and ensure that Angola is fully living up to its commitments in the Kimberley Process. If it is not, there should be serious consequences.

More broadly, we should also consider whether certain gaps in the Kimberley Process, such as promoting greater protection for human rights, can be incorporated into the oversight procedures of participating countries. We need to be realistic about what is possible with a voluntary organization, but we cannot allow ongoing human rights abuses involving diamonds to be ignored.

Issues of governance are also especially important for Angola's development prospects. While the country has seen tremendous overall economic growth in recent years, most Angolans have seen little, if any, direct benefit. Corruption remains a serious and deep-seated problem in Angola, including in the oil sector. For 2009, Transparency International ranked Angola 162nd out of 180 countries in its annual Corruption Perceptions Index. A report released in February by the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations documented how certain Angolan officials have sought to use U.S. banks and financial institutions to conceal funds acquired through corruption.

The Angolan Government has acknowledged that it needs to improve its fiscal management and practices, and President Dos Santos has called for a ``zero tolerance'' policy against corruption. I am pleased that the President has said this, and we should look for ways to help the government give real meaning to such a policy. At the same time, we should explore ways that we and our international partners can put pressure on corrupt officials in Angola to cease their illicit actions, including travel bans and assets freezes, and more.

In terms of governance, it is also important that the Angolan Government create the space for a strong civil society to develop--one that allows for the free flow of information and includes independent watchdog institutions that can demand accountability and transparency. We should seek to expand our engagement with civil society organizations and, as is appropriate, to help strengthen their capacity and amplify their voices in policy debates.

Within the government, Angola's National Assembly has the potential to play a strong oversight role, and I am pleased that Secretary Clinton met directly with the National Assembly during her visit to Luanda last year. We should look for ways, such as technical assistance and parliamentary exchanges, that we can support and strengthen the National Assembly's oversight roles.

Mr. President, none of this will be easy. Some in the Angolan Government are still unwelcoming toward the United States because of positions we took during their civil war. Many Angolans are also skeptical about whether we genuinely have interests beyond accessing oil. We need to take these perspectives seriously. But I believe we can break through the suspicion and mistrust by demonstrating--through greater resources and a more visible presence--that we seek a mutually beneficial, long-term partnership with the people of Angola. In the months and years ahead, I look forward to working with the administration to that end.

Mr. President, the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico was a tragedy for the workers killed and their families. It has also become an economic disaster for the people of the gulf coast and an unparalleled environmental disaster for our Nation. As we work to stop and clean up the spill, we also need to end the coziness between big oil and the Federal agencies that regulate the industry. That chummy relationship has shielded big oil from being held accountable for years, and it is high time we make sure that government is cracking down on, not cozying up to, the oil companies.

As I discussed a few days ago at a Judiciary Committee hearing examining liability issues related to the BP oilspill, Congress should take action right away to deter wrongdoing and encourage the kind of responsible, careful drilling we need. One way to do that is to eliminate big oil's liability cap for natural resources and economic damage caused by oilspills, such as the loss of travel and tourism revenue that businesses across the gulf are experiencing. I am a cosponsor of Senator Menendez's legislation to do just that. The oilspill in the gulf has made it painfully clear that this liability cap is far too low. The existing $75 million liability cap is less than 1 day's worth of profits for BP, which earned almost $6 billion in profits in the first quarter of this year.

But that must be just the beginning of a comprehensive effort to change the way government approaches big oil. For far too long, the oil industry has gotten special treatment, in large part because it is one of the wealthiest, most powerful special interests in Washington. The oil and gas industry gave $35 million in political donations in the last Presidential election cycle, and $\1/4\ billion in donations over the last 20 years. One of the reasons I have worked to curb the influence of money in politics for so many years is because of the undue influence of big oil.

Those donations have contributed to the oil industry's access to Congress and to the agencies that are supposed to regulate oil exploration and production. It is no coincidence that the oil industry has received unjustified tax breaks and other favorable treatment for years. That has to change, and we can start by getting rid of taxpayer- funded giveaways for the oil and gas industry, as I have proposed in my Control Spending Now Act, legislation to cut the deficit by about $\1/ 2\ trillion over 10 years. Part of that bill would end a taxpayer subsidy for the processing of oil company permits. I also support efforts to repeal over $35 billion in oil and gas tax breaks targeted by President Obama for elimination. As we seek to rein in record deficits, it is time to end these unjustified giveaways to an industry that doesn't need taxpayer support.

Congress must also make sure that regulators aren't simply acting as rubberstamps for whatever the oil industry wants. Unfortunately, too often the Federal Government ends up listening more to the powerful industries it is supposed to be regulating than to the consumers it is supposed to be protecting. Whether it is Wall Street or big oil that is calling the shots, the result is rarely good for my constituents in Wisconsin.

Another critical way to hold big oil accountable is to pass my ``Use It or Lose It'' legislation to ensure oil companies are diligently exploring the Federal leases they currently have, and not sitting on those leases in an effort to drive up gas prices. We should also restore the Clean Water Act, CWA, to its full strength. The CWA is the main statute used to prosecute polluters who dump oil into waters of the United States, and it is never been more important to ensure that polluters are held accountable for the damage they do to our economy and our environment.

Congress has the responsibility to look ahead and do what it takes to prevent a disaster like the one in the gulf from happening again. We have to come at this issue from all sides to make sure that BP is held accountable for the current spill, that we work to prevent future spills with proper regulations, and that we upend the culture that provides tax breaks and special treatment for big oil in the first place. Working to stop and clean up the spill in the gulf is not enough. Congress has to clean up the cozy Washington culture that favors big corporations over the needs of American people, and over the protection of our economy and our air and water.

Mr. President, Guinea is a fragile, resource-rich state in West Africa that has been plagued by political uncertainty since the death of its longtime President, Lansana Conte, in December 2008. Much of this upheaval can be attributed to the fact that the President, in his 25 long years of rule, left little room for governance reform. His autocratic legacy included abusive security forces, a collapsed economy, a divided civil society, and a squabbling opposition. As a result, there was no clear successor and no viable path forward. President Conte's commitment to democracy was cosmetic, at best, and easily trumped by his dictatorial tendencies and unwillingness to relinquish power.

As many Guinea watchers expected, the day after President Conte, died, a military junta calling itself the National Council for Democracy and Development, CNDD, seized power and dissolved the constitution and legislature. Given the deteriorated state of governance and widespread impunity, the junta was initially hailed by many as a safeguard against the endemic problems of corruption, insecurity, and rampant drug trafficking--all of which contribute to the lack of legitimate governance. Furthermore, the fact that the CNDD appointed a civilian prime minister and promised to hold Presidential and legislative elections gave many Guineans hope that the country was on the verge of a legitimate political transition.

But those elections were repeatedly postponed, despite repeated claims by the junta that a transition to civilian rule would occur. As the months passed, a number of signs, including the appointment of military officers to key government posts, indicated that CNDD was in fact not planning to relinquish power and was certainly not ready--or willing--to oversee an election process.

In fact, over the next few months the CNDD sought to tighten its hold on power severely, including an attempt in September 2009 by security forces to brutally crush a peaceful, prodemocracy rally. I joined many in the international community at that time in condemning such blatant and violent repression. A U.N. Commission was

sent to investigate the atrocities while the CNDD crackdown cast a dark shadow on Guinea's prospects for peace and stability.

During this period, I was pleased to see the Obama administration engage proactively to help reverse Guinea's political crisis-- particularly in the aftermath of the shooting of CNDD leader Captain Dadis Camara. In those fragile moments of uncertainty, the consistent diplomacy undertaken by our senior officials played an important role. Working with key regional actors and organizations, the State Department helped to broker an important political agreement, known as the Ouagadougou Declaration, which was widely welcomed as an end to the protracted political vacuum that had existed. The signing of this agreement ushered in a transitional united government that, while imperfect, has been actively supported by the Obama administration.

Unquestionably Guinea remains on delicate ground but the upcoming Presidential elections scheduled for June 27 create an opportunity for Guinea--and our bilateral relationship--to progress forward. Undoubtedly the process will be chaotic and messy, but there is a good chance we could see this beleaguered country bounce back from decades of mismanagement. Of course, in order for Guinea to truly progress, these elections must be the beginning of serious and sustained reform-- a process which must also include accountability for the abuses committed in September 2009. Elections are only one component of the democratic process, but still they are a significant one and may give the people of Guinea their long deserved chance to finally turn the page on their troubled political history.

While there are plenty of factors that could lead to another election postponement including the will of the transitional government and the capacity and efficiency of the election commission, I remain optimistic that this will not occur. Certainly there are real challenges to fostering democracy given Guinea's history, but the recent commitment from the Acting President and Chief of the Army to remain neutral and ensure the elections are free, credible, and transparent should not go without notice. I have long said that promoting and supporting democratic institutions should be a key tenet of our engagement with Africa, as institution building is essential to Africa's stability and its prosperity. In the case of Guinea--a nation that has great potential to flourish and thrive--credible elections are an important first step on the road to better governance.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4302, as Modified

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and others in introducing the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, a bill which effectively gives the President a line item veto to cancel wasteful spending.

Based on President Obama's proposal, our measure would permit the President to get expedited consideration in both the House and Senate of a package of proposed spending cuts within larger spending bills Congress sends to the President. The President would have 45 days from when the initial spending measure was enacted to submit his proposed cuts, and once that package of cuts is sent to the Hill, Congress would have less than a month to act on them. Any savings produced if Congress enacts these spending cut packages would go directly to reduce the deficit.

Just a few weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee at which this proposal and similar proposals were reviewed, and I am pleased to say that the consensus of that hearing is that the bill we are introducing today is clearly constitutional.

When he took office, President Obama was handed perhaps the worst economic and fiscal mess facing any administration since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933. The legacy President Obama inherited poses a gigantic challenge.

There is no magic bullet that will solve all our budget problems. Congress has to make some tough decisions, and there will be no avoiding them if we are to get our fiscal house in order. But we can take some steps that will help Congress make the right decisions, and that can sustain the progress we make.

A line-item veto, properly structured and respectful of the constitutionally central role Congress plays, as this legislation is, can help us get back on track.

As I noted before, Mr. President, I am joined in this effort by a number of colleagues, but most notably by Senator Carper and Senator McCain. I have been privileged to work on a number of critical budget reforms with Senator Carper. He has long been an advocate of this kind of expedited rescission or line item veto authority, and was the lead author of a similarly structured measure when he served in the other body.

I have also been pleased to work with Senator McCain on budget matters. He and I have worked together for the past two decades to oppose wasteful earmark spending, and more recently I have been pleased to work with him on line item veto proposals, including this one.

I also thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Congressman Paul Ryan, for working with me on this issue for several years now. He and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility. Earlier this year, Congressman Ryan raised this issue with President Obama at a meeting in Baltimore, and I thank him for his efforts to advance this issue.

The bill we introduce today is a significant step forward in our joint efforts to provide the President with the kind of authority needed to cut wasteful spending. As I noted earlier, this legislation is essentially the bill President Obama proposed just a few weeks ago. It provides the President the ability to get quick and definitive congressional action on cuts to individual programs in large spending bills.

Currently, the President must choose between vetoing a bill in its entirety,

or signing it and possibly enacting billions of dollars of wasteful spending. With this bill, the President will have a third option-- signing a spending bill, but then submitting a package of proposed cuts from that spending bill to Congress for quick review. The package of cuts proposed by the President will get an up or down vote in the House and, if it passes there, an up or down vote in the Senate.

Our line item veto bill covers earmark discretionary spending as well as broader non-entitlement spending accounts. The measure excludes entitlement spending and tax expenditures from the expedited rescission approach. Spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures make up an enormous amount of the total spending done by the Federal Government. However, unlike the programmatic spending done in discretionary programs, where cuts can be made by zeroing out or reducing a number for a specific account, reducing spending in entitlements or tax expenditures often requires a change in the underlying policy. Indeed, Congress already has a fast-track procedure designed specifically for considering legislation that reduces spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures. It is called reconciliation, and it was used effectively in the 1990s to reduce the deficit.

As I mentioned, a key target of this new line item veto bill is the unauthorized earmark spending that too often finds its way into large appropriations bills. Earmark spending was what Congressman Ryan and I targeted in our line item veto proposal, and it is the example every line-item veto proponent cites when promoting their legislation.

When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority.

Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. We won't solve our budget problems just by addressing earmarks, but if we are to get our fiscal house in order, eliminating earmarks has to be part of the solution. For all the lip service Congress pays to this issue, there are still thousands of earmarked spending provisions enacted every year. Just last year, the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2009 passed in March of 2009 contained more than 8,000 earmarks costing $7 billion, and the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 passed in December of 2009 included nearly 5,000 earmarks, costing $3.7 billion.

There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year. And given the unwillingness of Congress to discipline itself in this regard, it is appropriate to provide the President some additional authority to seek an up or down vote in Congress on proposed cuts in this area of spending.

This is not a cure-all. We will not balance the budget just by passing a line item veto-like authority for the President. Nor will we balance the budget just by eliminating wasteful earmark spending. But we can make real progress in getting our fiscal house in order, and in changing the culture of Washington which over the last 2 decades has seen an explosion of spending done through unauthorized earmarks that circumvent regular congressional review and the scrutiny of the competitive grant process.

Like the measure Congressman Ryan and I introduced, under this proposal, wasteful spending doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they begin. The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that is what this legislation promotes.

President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly insisted it be free of earmarks.

I am delighted he has stepped forward to propose a new line item veto-like authority, and I am especially pleased to be introducing that proposal with my colleagues today.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and others in introducing the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010, a bill which effectively gives the President a line item veto to cancel wasteful spending.

Based on President Obama's proposal, our measure would permit the President to get expedited consideration in both the House and Senate of a package of proposed spending cuts within larger spending bills Congress sends to the President. The President would have 45 days from when the initial spending measure was enacted to submit his proposed cuts, and once that package of cuts is sent to the Hill, Congress would have less than a month to act on them. Any savings produced if Congress enacts these spending cut packages would go directly to reduce the deficit.

Just a few weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee at which this proposal and similar proposals were reviewed, and I am pleased to say that the consensus of that hearing is that the bill we are introducing today is clearly constitutional.

When he took office, President Obama was handed perhaps the worst economic and fiscal mess facing any administration since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933. The legacy President Obama inherited poses a gigantic challenge.

There is no magic bullet that will solve all our budget problems. Congress has to make some tough decisions, and there will be no avoiding them if we are to get our fiscal house in order. But we can take some steps that will help Congress make the right decisions, and that can sustain the progress we make.

A line-item veto, properly structured and respectful of the constitutionally central role Congress plays, as this legislation is, can help us get back on track.

As I noted before, Mr. President, I am joined in this effort by a number of colleagues, but most notably by Senator Carper and Senator McCain. I have been privileged to work on a number of critical budget reforms with Senator Carper. He has long been an advocate of this kind of expedited rescission or line item veto authority, and was the lead author of a similarly structured measure when he served in the other body.

I have also been pleased to work with Senator McCain on budget matters. He and I have worked together for the past two decades to oppose wasteful earmark spending, and more recently I have been pleased to work with him on line item veto proposals, including this one.

I also thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Congressman Paul Ryan, for working with me on this issue for several years now. He and I belong to different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal responsibility. Earlier this year, Congressman Ryan raised this issue with President Obama at a meeting in Baltimore, and I thank him for his efforts to advance this issue.

The bill we introduce today is a significant step forward in our joint efforts to provide the President with the kind of authority needed to cut wasteful spending. As I noted earlier, this legislation is essentially the bill President Obama proposed just a few weeks ago. It provides the President the ability to get quick and definitive congressional action on cuts to individual programs in large spending bills.

Currently, the President must choose between vetoing a bill in its entirety,

or signing it and possibly enacting billions of dollars of wasteful spending. With this bill, the President will have a third option-- signing a spending bill, but then submitting a package of proposed cuts from that spending bill to Congress for quick review. The package of cuts proposed by the President will get an up or down vote in the House and, if it passes there, an up or down vote in the Senate.

Our line item veto bill covers earmark discretionary spending as well as broader non-entitlement spending accounts. The measure excludes entitlement spending and tax expenditures from the expedited rescission approach. Spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures make up an enormous amount of the total spending done by the Federal Government. However, unlike the programmatic spending done in discretionary programs, where cuts can be made by zeroing out or reducing a number for a specific account, reducing spending in entitlements or tax expenditures often requires a change in the underlying policy. Indeed, Congress already has a fast-track procedure designed specifically for considering legislation that reduces spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures. It is called reconciliation, and it was used effectively in the 1990s to reduce the deficit.

As I mentioned, a key target of this new line item veto bill is the unauthorized earmark spending that too often finds its way into large appropriations bills. Earmark spending was what Congressman Ryan and I targeted in our line item veto proposal, and it is the example every line-item veto proponent cites when promoting their legislation.

When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the reason for granting the President this new authority.

Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. We won't solve our budget problems just by addressing earmarks, but if we are to get our fiscal house in order, eliminating earmarks has to be part of the solution. For all the lip service Congress pays to this issue, there are still thousands of earmarked spending provisions enacted every year. Just last year, the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2009 passed in March of 2009 contained more than 8,000 earmarks costing $7 billion, and the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010 passed in December of 2009 included nearly 5,000 earmarks, costing $3.7 billion.

There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful spending year after year. And given the unwillingness of Congress to discipline itself in this regard, it is appropriate to provide the President some additional authority to seek an up or down vote in Congress on proposed cuts in this area of spending.

This is not a cure-all. We will not balance the budget just by passing a line item veto-like authority for the President. Nor will we balance the budget just by eliminating wasteful earmark spending. But we can make real progress in getting our fiscal house in order, and in changing the culture of Washington which over the last 2 decades has seen an explosion of spending done through unauthorized earmarks that circumvent regular congressional review and the scrutiny of the competitive grant process.

Like the measure Congressman Ryan and I introduced, under this proposal, wasteful spending doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get rid of wasteful projects before they begin. The taxpayers--who pay the price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal discipline, and that is what this legislation promotes.

President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly insisted it be free of earmarks.

I am delighted he has stepped forward to propose a new line item veto-like authority, and I am especially pleased to be introducing that proposal with my colleagues today.

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

Madam President, once again, I wish to express my concern about the situation in Somalia. To put it frankly, the situation is appalling. Since the start of fighting in 2007, at least 21,000 people have been killed and more than 1.5 million have been displaced. Thousands of refugees continue to pour into overcrowded camps in Kenya, Ethiopia, Yemen, and elsewhere. For those who remain in Somalia, the United Nations refugee and food agencies are unable to reach many of them because of the insecurity and threats to humanitarian staff. The terrorist group al Shebaab and other armed groups continue to wage war against the Transitional Federal Government, the TFG, in Mogadishu as well as against one another in an effort to expand their territorial control. Al Shebaab has resorted to using suicide bombings, most recently in an attack inside a mosque in Mogadishu, which killed dozens of civilians. Meanwhile, al Shebaab is employing increasingly brutal tactics to maintain its control over certain areas--carrying out executions, chopping off hands and legs, and forcibly conscripting youth.

Mr. President, we should be appalled at this situation, but we should also be concerned because of the direct ramifications for our national security. Al Shebaab's leadership has links to al-Qaida, and it has indicated, through public statements, that it intends to provide support to al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen. Even more disconcerting, it has recruited a number of Americans to travel to the region and fight with it. In October 2008, a Somali-American blew himself up in Somalia as part of a coordinated attack by al Shebaab, reportedly becoming the first known suicide bomber with U.S. citizenship. The Justice Department has since brought terrorist charges against over a dozen people for recruiting and raising funds for Americans to fight with al Shebaab. Last September, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, testified that ``the potential for al-Qaida operatives in Somalia to commission Americans to return to the United States and launch attacks against the Homeland remains of significant concern.'' Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that an American from Alabama, Omar Hammami, has become a key figure in al Shebaab. Just this past weekend, two other Americans, neither with family ties in Somalia, were arrested in New Jersey for allegedly planning to fight in Somalia with al Shebaab. This is very troublesome news and brings home the implications of Somalia's ongoing crisis.

The Obama administration has been right to refocus attention on Somalia--and to consider regional dynamics at the same time. I am also pleased that the administration has been clear in its support for the Djibouti peace process. I am, however, concerned that this process--as currently constituted--is not sufficient to unite Somalis and mitigate the ongoing crisis. As the situation there turns more dreadful, I worry that the process is becoming increasingly detached from events on the ground. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that while the administration continues to provide assistance--both materiel and diplomatic--to the TFG, we still do not have an overarching strategy for Somalia that ties our programs and policies together. As a result, we appear to be grasping at straws to ``do something'' while our national security increasingly hangs in the balance.

Under the previous administration, our approach toward Somalia lacked coherence and was shortsighted. This discord gave rise to conflicting agendas that undermined each other and our credibility. Without clear policy guidance, the current administration's efforts--however well intentioned--may fall into the same trap. There is great risk that by focusing too narrowly on tactical decisions we will continue to operate without a larger strategy.

Now, I understand in the early months of the administration there was an interagency effort to review our policy toward Somalia and the Horn of Africa. However, it is also my understanding that no overarching policy was established. Now is the time to renew such an effort, and as part of this initiative, we need some way to measure whether we are making progress. The administration has rightly pressed the TFG to broaden its appeal and strength, but we have seen no major improvement on that front. With the exception of its agreement with Ahlu Sunna wal Jama, the TFG has done little to expand its reach and undercut its opposition. The TFG has not become more inclusive, and it has not projected an attractive political vision to counter that of armed opposition groups. As a result, it is not becoming more legitimate in the eyes of Somalis.

Going forward, we need clear guidance on what we expect to achieve with our support for the TFG, the Djibouti Process, and our efforts to weaken al Shebaab and provide humanitarian assistance. Without such a coordinated and measurable approach, we run the risk of continuing to fund the same initiatives with little progress made. Such an assessment is important not only so that American taxpayers know their money is being well spent, but also so we know our safety and security are being enhanced.

There are some thoughtful observers who believe that the best option for the United States might be to just disengage altogether and let this crisis play out. The stakes are too high to do that. However, these observers are right that a continuation of the status quo will only further entrench the crisis. The current efforts by the United States and the international community are insufficient to change the fundamental dynamics of the situation. We need to go back to the drawing board and develop a strategy with measurable goals and a clear plan of how we will reach them.

We also need to consider whether appointing a Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, to help create and drive policy, is once again appropriate. For years I have called for the creation of such a position--at a very senior level--but to no avail. I do believe that now is the time for this position to be considered particularly because of the direct national security implications, but also because the crisis in Somalia requires a regional approach. We need a senior official to regularly connect the dots between a number of countries in the region including Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, and Yemen in order to develop an effective strategy. In addition, having a senior envoy focused on addressing this crisis can help show the people of Somalia that we are finally serious about helping their efforts to achieve a future free of terror and conflict.

In thinking about how we fit counterterrorism concerns into a broader strategy, we must be practical. Mr. President, tactical operations against individuals and networks may be justified in some cases, especially if the targets have clear ties to al-Qaida and pose a direct threat to the United States. But we need to think hard about the strategic implications and potential risks of these operations because at the same time we need to reach out to, work with, and support all Somalis who seek a more stable and secure country. The perception that the United States is only interested in tactical counterterrorism operations in Somalia has generated suspicion among Somalis and fueled anti-Americanism. Not taking that into account when planning or authorizing any tactical operations is counter-productive.

Equally as important to our counterterrorism goals is the need to continue

pressing for an inclusive and functional system of governance that can enforce the rule of law and provide security. In addition to supporting the TFG, we should look for creative ways to work with other governments and nongovernmental actors to encourage political consensus and reconciliation among different groups in Somalia. We need to look at the grassroots and local level and see how they can be bolstered and expanded. Helping Somalis to come together around a shared political vision and to translate that vision into a political system that makes a tangible difference in people's lives is the surest way to address our national security concerns over the long term.

Achieving stability and restoring the rule of law in Somalia will not be easy or quick--nearly two decades of dysfunction have made sure of that--but we must have a strategy in place if we are to proceed. We cannot respond in an uncoordinated and ad hoc manner to the conditions that breed and empower terrorist organizations and we cannot address them on the cheap. Our national security, the fate of Somalia's people, and the region's stability demand nothing less.