Floor Statements

Madam President, I am glad the Senate is finally considering the critically important issue of financial regulatory reform. Few things are as important as ensuring we never again suffer the kind of meltdown of the financial markets that shoved our economy into the worst recession since the Great Depression. I think it still remains to be seen if this bill will do that. While it certainly includes some good reforms, more needs to be done, and the track record of Congress in this area is, at best, checkered.

For the last 30 years, Presidents and Congresses have consistently given into Wall Street lobbyists and weakened essential safeguards. As has been the case in so many areas, members of both political parties are to blame. Legislation that paved the way for the creation of massive Wall Street entities and removed essential protections for our economy passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. From the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s to the more recent financial crisis that triggered the horrible economic downturn from which we are still recovering, those three decades of bipartisan blunders have been devastating to our Nation. The price of those blunders has been paid by homeowners, Main Street businesses, retirees, and millions of families facing an uncertain economic future.

The impact of the recent financial crisis on the Nation's economy has been enormous. Millions have lost their jobs and millions more who are lucky enough to have a job are forced to work fewer hours than they want and need to work. According to a study done by the Pew Trust, the financial crisis caused American households an average of nearly $5,800 in lost income. Of course, families lost a significant amount of their personal savings. As a nation, we lost $7.4 trillion in stock wealth between July 2008 and March 2009 and another $3.4 trillion in real estate wealth during that same time. We simply cannot afford to continue down the path policymakers have set over the past 30 years.

The test for this legislation then is a simple one: Whether it will prevent another financial crisis. Central to that test will be how this bill will address too big to fail. This is a critical issue that has been growing for some time now as increased economic concentration in the financial services sector has put more and more financial assets under the control of fewer and fewer decisionmakers.

Years ago, a former Senator from Wisconsin, William Proxmire, noted that as banking assets become more concentrated, the banking system itself becomes less stable, as there is greater potential for systemwide failures. Sadly, Senator Proxmire was absolutely right, as recent events have proved. Even beyond the issue of systemic stability, the trend toward further concentration of economic power and economic decisionmaking, especially in the financial sector, simply is not healthy for the Nation's economy.

Banks have a very special role in our free market system: They are rationers of capital. When fewer and fewer banks are making more and more of the critical decisions about where capital is allocated, then there is an increased risk that many worthy enterprises will not receive the capital needed to grow and flourish. For years, a strength of the American banking system was the strong community and local nature of that system. Locally made decisions made by locally owned financial institutions--institutions whose economic prospects are tied to the financial health of the community they serve--have long played a critical role in the economic development of our Nation and especially for our smaller communities and rural areas.

But we have moved away from that system. Directly as a result of policy changes made by Congress and regulators, banking assets are controlled by fewer and fewer institutions, and the diminishment of that locally owned and controlled capital has not benefited either businesses or consumers. Of course, most dramatically, taxpayers across the country must now realize that Senator Proxmire's warning about the concentration of banking assets proved to be all too prescient when President Bush and Congress decided to bail out those mammoth financial institutions rather than allowing them to fail. That was a bailout I strongly opposed.

The trend toward increased concentration of capital was greatly accelerated in 1994 by the enactment of the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act and especially in 1999 by the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which tore down the protective firewalls between commercial banking and Wall Street investment firms.

Those firewalls had been established in the wake of the country's last great financial crisis 80 years ago by the Banking Act of 1933, the famous reform measure also known as the Glass-Steagall Act.

Prior to Glass-Steagall, devastating financial panics had been a regular feature of our economy, but that changed with the enactment of that momentous legislation, which stabilized our banking system by implementing two key reforms. First, it established an insurance system for deposits, reassuring bank customers that their deposits were safe and, thus, forestalling bank runs. Second, it erected a firewall between securities underwriting and commercial banking so financial firms had to choose which business to be in. That firewall was a crucial part of establishing another protection--deposit insurance-- because it prevented banks that accepted FDIC-insured deposits from making these speculative bets with that money.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act tore down that firewall, as well as the firewall that separated insurance from Wall Street banks, and we have seen the disastrous results of that policy. I voted against tearing down the firewall that separated Main Street from the Wall Street banks. I did it for the same reason I voted against the Wall Street bailout: because I listened to the people of Wisconsin who did not want to give Wall Street more and more power. Wall Street was gambling with the money of hard-working families and too many Members of Congress voted to let them do it. I didn't support it before and I will not support it now. We

have to get this legislation right and protect the people of Wisconsin and every State--protect them from something such as this ever happening again.

So I was pleased to join the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, in introducing legislation to correct that enormous mistake Congress made in passing Gramm-Leach- Bliley. I look forward to supporting an amendment to this measure based on the Cantwell-McCain-Feingold bill.

The measure before us seeks to make up for the lack of a protective firewall between the speculative investment bets made by Wall Street firms and the safety net-backed activities of commercial banking by imposing greater regulatory oversight. We have seen how creative financial firms can be at eluding regulation when so much profit is at stake. No amount of regulatory oversight can take the place of the legal firewall established by Glass-Steagall. So when it is offered, I urge my colleagues to support Senator Cantwell's amendment to restore that sensible protection. Rebuilding the Glass-Steagall firewall is essential in preventing another financial crisis.

But even if we restore Glass-Steagall, there are additional steps we should take to address too big to fail in this bill. I am pleased to be joining the Senator from North Dakota in offering his amendment to address the problem directly by requiring that no financial entity be permitted to become so large that its failure threatens the financial stability of the United States. I am also looking forward to supporting an amendment that will be offered by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, and the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Kaufman, who is in the Chamber, that proposes bright line limits on the size of financial institutions. The disposition of those three proposals I have just reviewed will go a long way in determining my vote for the final version of this measure. I very much want to craft in this body a bill that can prevent the kind of crisis we experienced in the past, but the bill before us needs some work before we can legitimately make that claim.

I thank the President and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining an effort spearheaded by the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. McCaskill, to put an end to the practice of Senators secretly holding up legislation or nominations. Senators who want to block a bill or nomination should be willing to state their objection on the record. Many of us thought we had addressed that problem when Congress approved the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Unfortunately, the problem of secret holds persists, and the new rule needs to be tightened.

As with any Senator, there are times when I object to passage of a bill or confirmation of a nominee. It has not been my practice to try to keep my objection secret, however. For example, when the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and I objected to confirmation of the nomination of John Sullivan to a term on the Federal Election Commission last year, we released a statement publicly stating our action and our reasons. We made clear that, until the White House nominates replacements for the two other commissioners whose terms have expired, we would not consent to Mr. Sullivan's confirmation. The FEC is currently mired in anti-enforcement gridlock, and the President must nominate new commissioners with a demonstrated commitment to the existence and enforcement of the campaign finance laws.

Similarly, when I had concerns about legislation introduced by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, S. 132, I discussed my concerns directly with

her. I have proposed changes that would make the bill more effective in addressing the serious problem of gang-related violence, and I look forward to passage of the amended bill.

Mr. President, it is not enough to fight for change--you need to lead by example, too. So I will make it my practice to have printed a statement in the Record when I object to bringing up legislation or a nomination. And I urge my colleagues to do the same, and to support efforts to eliminate loopholes in the current rule.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the bipartisan Federal Contracting and Oversight Act. Every year millions of taxpayer dollars are awarded to contractors with a history of poor performance and misconduct because our federal contracting oversight regime, though well-intentioned, is broken.

The problems in our contracting oversight regime were first brought to my attention by my constituents in Wisconsin, several of whom are small businesses that have suffered as a result of misconduct by a Federal contractor. In one case, a Federal contractor that has received over $6 million in Federal contracts failed to pay small businesses in Wisconsin that worked as subcontractors. Several years later, the Army finally barred the contractor from receiving Federal dollars, finding that the contractor had ``a documented history of failing to pay subcontractors for services rendered pursuant to government contracts.'' We must ensure that these records of poor performance and misconduct are identified before federal contracts are awarded to contractors, not years later after the damage has already been done.

As I studied the issue further, I learned that similar problems were widespread and well documented. The Government Accountability Office has documented numerous instances of suspended and debarred companies continuing to receive federal contracts. In one case, a company that had been debarred for attempting to ship nuclear bomb parts to North Korea continued to receive millions of dollars on an Army contract. In another case, a contractor that had been suspended after one of its employees was found to have sabotaged repairs on an aircraft carrier was awarded three new contracts a month after the incident.

We must act to ensure that these incidents do not repeat themselves. American taxpayer dollars should be spent responsibly and the flaws of our contracting process should never be allowed to affect our security.

Our Federal contracting process is in urgent need of reform and greater oversight. To that end, I am introducing the Federal Contracting and Oversight Act, which is an important step to prevent the continued Federal patronage of private companies unworthy of our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

I am encouraged that Senator Coburn has also taken note of the flaws of the Federal contracting process and has joined me in this effort as an original cosponsor. This bill also has the support of experts that closely track our federal contracting process, including the Project on Government Oversight, the Center for American Progress, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and OMB Watch.

This bill will protect the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers by improving the federal contracting system in three ways:

First, this bill will make the system more transparent.

Sunshine continues to be the best disinfectant; unfortunately, some of the most important data concerning contractor performance and misconduct is shielded from the scrutiny of the full Congress and American people.

This bill will broaden access to the new Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, FAPIIS, database, which contains a comprehensive picture of the records of Federal contractors including details of criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, contract defaults, suspension and debarments, and other violations of federal acquisition laws.

Under my bill, every member of Congress will be able to access the database in order to review the records of contractors. This is an important step towards greater transparency in our contracting oversight system. Each member of Congress has an interest in monitoring how the taxpayer dollars of their constituents are being spent.

Second, this bill will empower our contracting officers by giving them the tools and resources they need to adequately vet companies seeking Federal dollars.

Contracting officers currently make award decisions with only a limited set of information that is insufficient to support an informed decision. These contracting officers often lack the information they need to adequately review a company's contracting history.

This bill helps ensure that these officers have a more comprehensive picture of a company's contracting history before they make an award decision. Under this bill, the information available to them will include information on a broader range of misconduct, such as that occurring over 5 years ago, pertaining to a wider range of contracts or resulting in a more inclusive list of legal proceedings. This bill also requires companies vying for Federal dollars to self-report essential details about their past performance before they can receive a contract award. Together, these provisions will help ensure that those officials entrusted with awarding Federal contract dollars have all the resources they need to make an informed decision.

Third, this bill will strengthen the current oversight regime by fixing loopholes and shortcomings that have undermined its effectiveness. An oversight regime can only be effective if it is used, and used properly. It is unacceptable that taxpayer dollars continue to go to companies that have already been suspended or debarred, just because contracting officers have failed to either record or check their status.

Accordingly, this bill tasks the Comptroller General with producing an annual report on the extent to which companies that have been suspended and debarred continue to receive federal contracts or waivers to receive federal contracts. This is an important step towards ensuring that the problems in our contracting process receive the congressional and public scrutiny they deserve. This bill also requires the Inspectors General of each federal agency involved in the procurement process to conduct an annual audit to ensure that contracting officials are appropriately considering the past performance and misconduct of contractors.

The source of the oversight regime's ineffectiveness also lies in its design, which is in need of both consolidation and modernization.

When contracting officials begin to review a company's contracting history, the information they need is spread across numerous databases. They have to navigate an unorganized array of databases, including: the Excluded Parties List System, Central Contractor Registry, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, Federal Assistance Award Data System, Federal Awardee Performance

and Integrity Information System, Federal Business Opportunities Database, Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, Past Performance Information Retrieval System, and USAspending.gov, among others.

We must integrate these databases to ensure that contracting officials have a one-stop source for relevant contracting information. I am pleased that the General Services Administration has taken some positive steps in this direction, but any consolidation must be comprehensive. Accordingly, this bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to develop and submit a plan to integrate and consolidate the nine most important databases into a single searchable and linked network.

Another reason why suspended and debarred companies continue to receive federal contracts in error is because the unique identification system used to track companies is ineffective and in need of modernization. The Government Accountability Office has documented that the current identification system fails to adequately track subsidiaries, spin-offs, shell companies, and other related entities. This weak tracking system permits some suspended and debarred companies to access federal dollars to which they are not legally entitled.

To that end, this bill requires the Inspector General of the General Services Administration to determine whether the existing system of identifying numbers for contractors is adequately tracking Federal contractors, and develop a plan for developing and adopting a new and more robust identification system.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. The American people entrust us with their hard-earned tax dollars, and we have a responsibility to ensure that their money is being spent appropriately.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the bipartisan Federal Contracting and Oversight Act. Every year millions of taxpayer dollars are awarded to contractors with a history of poor performance and misconduct because our federal contracting oversight regime, though well-intentioned, is broken.

The problems in our contracting oversight regime were first brought to my attention by my constituents in Wisconsin, several of whom are small businesses that have suffered as a result of misconduct by a Federal contractor. In one case, a Federal contractor that has received over $6 million in Federal contracts failed to pay small businesses in Wisconsin that worked as subcontractors. Several years later, the Army finally barred the contractor from receiving Federal dollars, finding that the contractor had ``a documented history of failing to pay subcontractors for services rendered pursuant to government contracts.'' We must ensure that these records of poor performance and misconduct are identified before federal contracts are awarded to contractors, not years later after the damage has already been done.

As I studied the issue further, I learned that similar problems were widespread and well documented. The Government Accountability Office has documented numerous instances of suspended and debarred companies continuing to receive federal contracts. In one case, a company that had been debarred for attempting to ship nuclear bomb parts to North Korea continued to receive millions of dollars on an Army contract. In another case, a contractor that had been suspended after one of its employees was found to have sabotaged repairs on an aircraft carrier was awarded three new contracts a month after the incident.

We must act to ensure that these incidents do not repeat themselves. American taxpayer dollars should be spent responsibly and the flaws of our contracting process should never be allowed to affect our security.

Our Federal contracting process is in urgent need of reform and greater oversight. To that end, I am introducing the Federal Contracting and Oversight Act, which is an important step to prevent the continued Federal patronage of private companies unworthy of our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

I am encouraged that Senator Coburn has also taken note of the flaws of the Federal contracting process and has joined me in this effort as an original cosponsor. This bill also has the support of experts that closely track our federal contracting process, including the Project on Government Oversight, the Center for American Progress, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and OMB Watch.

This bill will protect the hard-earned dollars of American taxpayers by improving the federal contracting system in three ways:

First, this bill will make the system more transparent.

Sunshine continues to be the best disinfectant; unfortunately, some of the most important data concerning contractor performance and misconduct is shielded from the scrutiny of the full Congress and American people.

This bill will broaden access to the new Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, FAPIIS, database, which contains a comprehensive picture of the records of Federal contractors including details of criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, contract defaults, suspension and debarments, and other violations of federal acquisition laws.

Under my bill, every member of Congress will be able to access the database in order to review the records of contractors. This is an important step towards greater transparency in our contracting oversight system. Each member of Congress has an interest in monitoring how the taxpayer dollars of their constituents are being spent.

Second, this bill will empower our contracting officers by giving them the tools and resources they need to adequately vet companies seeking Federal dollars.

Contracting officers currently make award decisions with only a limited set of information that is insufficient to support an informed decision. These contracting officers often lack the information they need to adequately review a company's contracting history.

This bill helps ensure that these officers have a more comprehensive picture of a company's contracting history before they make an award decision. Under this bill, the information available to them will include information on a broader range of misconduct, such as that occurring over 5 years ago, pertaining to a wider range of contracts or resulting in a more inclusive list of legal proceedings. This bill also requires companies vying for Federal dollars to self-report essential details about their past performance before they can receive a contract award. Together, these provisions will help ensure that those officials entrusted with awarding Federal contract dollars have all the resources they need to make an informed decision.

Third, this bill will strengthen the current oversight regime by fixing loopholes and shortcomings that have undermined its effectiveness. An oversight regime can only be effective if it is used, and used properly. It is unacceptable that taxpayer dollars continue to go to companies that have already been suspended or debarred, just because contracting officers have failed to either record or check their status.

Accordingly, this bill tasks the Comptroller General with producing an annual report on the extent to which companies that have been suspended and debarred continue to receive federal contracts or waivers to receive federal contracts. This is an important step towards ensuring that the problems in our contracting process receive the congressional and public scrutiny they deserve. This bill also requires the Inspectors General of each federal agency involved in the procurement process to conduct an annual audit to ensure that contracting officials are appropriately considering the past performance and misconduct of contractors.

The source of the oversight regime's ineffectiveness also lies in its design, which is in need of both consolidation and modernization.

When contracting officials begin to review a company's contracting history, the information they need is spread across numerous databases. They have to navigate an unorganized array of databases, including: the Excluded Parties List System, Central Contractor Registry, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, Federal Assistance Award Data System, Federal Awardee Performance

and Integrity Information System, Federal Business Opportunities Database, Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation, Past Performance Information Retrieval System, and USAspending.gov, among others.

We must integrate these databases to ensure that contracting officials have a one-stop source for relevant contracting information. I am pleased that the General Services Administration has taken some positive steps in this direction, but any consolidation must be comprehensive. Accordingly, this bill requires the Office of Management and Budget to develop and submit a plan to integrate and consolidate the nine most important databases into a single searchable and linked network.

Another reason why suspended and debarred companies continue to receive federal contracts in error is because the unique identification system used to track companies is ineffective and in need of modernization. The Government Accountability Office has documented that the current identification system fails to adequately track subsidiaries, spin-offs, shell companies, and other related entities. This weak tracking system permits some suspended and debarred companies to access federal dollars to which they are not legally entitled.

To that end, this bill requires the Inspector General of the General Services Administration to determine whether the existing system of identifying numbers for contractors is adequately tracking Federal contractors, and develop a plan for developing and adopting a new and more robust identification system.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. The American people entrust us with their hard-earned tax dollars, and we have a responsibility to ensure that their money is being spent appropriately.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act with Senator Isakson and Senator Kerry. This legislation aims to update U.S. policy and to provide the necessary direction and flexibility for the United States to proactively push for democracy and economic recovery in Zimbabwe. In September 2008, the parties in Zimbabwe signed the Global Political Agreement, the GPA, and committed to work together to chart a new political direction for the country. Unfortunately, that commitment has not yet been fulfilled and political and human rights abuses continue at a disturbing rate. Nonetheless, the GPA and the formation of the transitional government have created new political realities and realignment in Zimbabwe, and subsequently, new opportunities to push for a genuine transition to democracy and for economic recovery. The United States and other international stakeholders can seize those opportunities by supporting reformers, while renewing and ramping up pressure on those who obstruct implementation of the GPA. Our bill aims to promote such a dynamic approach.

We are all familiar with the tragic story of Zimbabwe's descent. Zimbabwe was one of Africa's most prosperous countries, a major food producer and home to the continent's best education system. Its leader Robert Mugabe was considered one of the great liberation leaders of southern Africa. Yet over time, Mugabe and his regime moved to tighten their grip on power, using increasingly violent tactics to stop the political opposition, stifle independent media, and take over private property. The results, particularly in the last decade, have been disastrous. Mugabe has presided over the collapse of Zimbabwe's economy and a dramatic decline in the living conditions of his people. At the end of 2008, Zimbabwe's economy reached a low point with world-record inflation, millions of people at risk of starvation, and unemployment over 90 percent. Meanwhile, Mugabe and his party have had to resort to increasing violence to repress the will of the people. Most recently, following the March 2008 election, the Mugabe regime and its cronies launched a brutal campaign of violence against members and supporters of the opposition MDC after Morgan Tsvangirai won the first round of voting.

I have closely followed the situation in Zimbabwe since 1999 when I traveled to Harare and witnessed then the early stages of this political crisis. During that trip, I also met some incredibly dynamic, committed and inspiring civil society leaders. Upon returning, I said on the Senate floor that we must not abandon these leaders; that the international community should move to arrest Zimbabwe's descent before it became more complex. I teamed up then with Senator Bill Frist to author legislation on U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe.

And in 2001, President Bush signed that legislation, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, into law. ZDERA, as that bill is known, placed restrictions on U.S. support for any new international loan, credit or debt reduction for Zimbabwe until the President certifies that a number of political conditions have been met, namely an end to abuses and the restoration of rule of law. The bill also called for targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for politically motivated violence.

At the same time, ZDERA also spelled out the United States' commitment to the Zimbabwean people in their struggle to effect peaceful and democratic change. And it stated our commitment to be a strong partner in helping the Zimbabwean people to rebuild their country when that change was achieved. I have not given up on that commitment, despite the Mugabe regime's relentless and violent efforts to hold onto power. In 2002, I tried to return to the country, but my visa was revoked and the government blocked my entry into the country. In 2003, I traveled to South Africa and Botswana, in part to discuss the crisis in Zimbabwe and the regional consequences. Most recently, in 2008 and 2009, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, I have held hearings specifically on Zimbabwe and U.S. policy options.

With the signing of the GPA, I was skeptical that Robert Mugabe and his allies had any real intention to share power and respect the agreement. I remain skeptical as at almost every turn, hardliners in the transitional government have resisted any moves that would undermine their historic patronage system and power structures. Mugabe has refused to implement several parts of the agreement, continuing to use Western sanctions as a scapegoat. Meanwhile, state security forces remain largely under the control of ZANU-PF and continue to harass civil society activists and participate in illegal, often violent, seizures of private land and property. In this sense, little has changed in Zimbabwe.

Yet at the same time, for many Zimbabweans, the establishment of a transitional government that includes former opposition leaders who were imprisoned and tortured as part of Zimbabwe's democratic struggle has brought forth a sense of possibility that has not existed for years. It has brought their struggle for democracy into the halls of government. And over the last year, some progress has been made toward enacting reforms. Most notably, the Finance Ministry has managed to halt Zimbabwe's economic decline and put an end to some of the disastrous fiscal activities of the previous regime. That said, progress has been slow and limited mostly to the economic sector. We cannot deceive ourselves into thinking that the return of food and other goods to stores is an indication that true democracy has taken root. Reformist elements in the government continue to lack the leverage as well as the qualified personnel and resources to overcome the resistance of hardliners and to break their hold on the security sector. They need greater support if they are going to win this struggle and achieve a genuine transition to democracy and economic recovery.

I respect those who are cautious about changing the international posture toward Zimbabwe until there is greater progress and a clear transition underway. I too am cautious, as there is good reason to be so. But at the same time, I also believe we must support the Zimbabwean people in their ongoing struggle for peaceful, democratic change and we can best do that by reconsidering some of the strict polices of years prior. We must realize that the dynamics of that struggle have changed--not as much as we would like them to go, not even close but there has been change. Adhering to a strict wait-and-see approach allows Mugabe and his allies to continue to marginalize reformers in the transitional government and manipulate the political environment, while relying on their usual anti-Western propaganda to win local and regional support. Alternatively, through proactive and targeted engagement, there may be ways that we can better support reformers in government, create incentives for others in the government to embrace such reform, and isolate the hardliners. If we are to see institutional change in Zimbabwe, it is in our interest to pursue those possibilities.

The United States has a key role to play in this regard. We continue to be very active in Zimbabwe, providing humanitarian assistance and support for civil society. In Fiscal Year 2009, the United States provided nearly $300 million to Zimbabwe, over half of which was food assistance. Over the last year, some within the administration have begun to explore ways we can better target our assistance to help reformers in order to consolidate democratic reforms and lay the groundwork for economic recovery. We have already provided some technical assistance to help certain ministries in the government. This is the right approach and we should continue to look for ways to proceed, both symbolically and substantively. At the same time, we should continue to update and increase targeted pressure on those individuals and institutions that are actively obstructing reform. We should also look for innovative ways to address illegal activities that are in violation of the GPA.

The Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2010 seeks to encourage and provide the authority and flexibility for the Obama administration to pursue such a dynamic approach toward Zimbabwe. Our bill authorizes continued and expanded technical assistance to reformist ministries of the transitional government as well as to the Parliament as it seeks to repeal or amend repressive laws. It also amends the funding restrictions on Zimbabwe in the fiscal year 2010 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill to allow for greater engagement in the areas of health and education. Furthermore, it encourages the United States to promote agricultural development as much as possible within our food assistance efforts, while we actively press the government to reestablish security of tenure for all landowners.

In addition, our bill would amend ZDERA to allow the United States greater flexibility and leverage when engaging with the International Financial Institutions on Zimbabwe. The law from 2001 restricts U.S. support for any international loan, credit or debt reduction to Zimbabwe until the President certifies that certain political conditions have been achieved in the country. This restriction currently has no discernible impact as Zimbabwe can only be eligible for such international support when it deals with its arrears, which now total billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this restriction has become a powerful symbol and it functionally ties the hands of the State and Treasury Departments to actively engage with the IMF, African Development Bank and other institutions to develop plans for supporting Zimbabwe's longer-term recovery when there is a genuine transition. Our bill would amend ZDERA to allow for such engagement, making U.S. support conditional on the proposed assistance itself, specifically whether there are sufficient controls for transparency and oversight, and whether funds will be administered by ministries that have demonstrated a commitment to reform.

Amending ZDERA will help to provide flexibility and leverage for the U.S. government, but also to undercut Mugabe's propaganda. Over the years, Mugabe and his allies have conveniently portrayed ZDERA as a symbol of Western hostility and blanket sanctions on Zimbabwe. While those allegations are clearly false, the changes made by our bill will go a long way towards ensuring they have a much harder time spinning this lie and deflecting responsibility from their own disastrous policies.

ZDERA, of course, is not to be conflated with our targeted sanctions against specific individuals and financial institutions that are directly involved in the breakdown of the rule of law and abuses of power. Our bill calls for the continuation of that program as I see no reason to terminate this sanctions program until we see an end to widespread abuses. Instead, our bill calls for the continued review and updating of those sanctions. It also encourages new action to address illegal activities involving diamonds in Zimbabwe that are reportedly fueling abuses and undermining democratic progress. Specifically, it urges the

Obama administration to consider new sanctions on individuals overseeing these activities and to press for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Kimberley Process. Zimbabwe's continued participation in the Kimberley Process undermines the integrity and important work of that process.

Finally, whenever it happens, Zimbabwe's next election will be a critical step toward any genuine transition to democratic rule and a sustainable economic recovery. The past elections have been flashpoints for increased violence and the breakdown of the rule of law. This cannot be the case this next time around if Zimbabwe is to move forward. The international community needs to prepare a coordinated strategy to help reduce the risk of violence and other abuses around such elections. Our bill directs the Obama administration to begin engaging with international partners now toward developing such a strategy.

International actions alone will not determine whether real and lasting democratic change is achieved in Zimbabwe; that will ultimately be determined by the Zimbabwean people themselves. But I do believe that we can help Zimbabweans pursue a genuine transition toward democracy and economic recovery. To do this, we need an approach that is flexible and responsive to evolving conditions and challenges on the ground. I believe this bill helps move us toward such an approach.

Nearly a decade ago, in passing ZDERA, the U.S. Congress committed to support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful, democratic change, achieve economic growth and restore the rule of law. Today, we can reaffirm that commitment by passing the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act. I hope my colleagues will join us in doing so.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act with Senator Isakson and Senator Kerry. This legislation aims to update U.S. policy and to provide the necessary direction and flexibility for the United States to proactively push for democracy and economic recovery in Zimbabwe. In September 2008, the parties in Zimbabwe signed the Global Political Agreement, the GPA, and committed to work together to chart a new political direction for the country. Unfortunately, that commitment has not yet been fulfilled and political and human rights abuses continue at a disturbing rate. Nonetheless, the GPA and the formation of the transitional government have created new political realities and realignment in Zimbabwe, and subsequently, new opportunities to push for a genuine transition to democracy and for economic recovery. The United States and other international stakeholders can seize those opportunities by supporting reformers, while renewing and ramping up pressure on those who obstruct implementation of the GPA. Our bill aims to promote such a dynamic approach.

We are all familiar with the tragic story of Zimbabwe's descent. Zimbabwe was one of Africa's most prosperous countries, a major food producer and home to the continent's best education system. Its leader Robert Mugabe was considered one of the great liberation leaders of southern Africa. Yet over time, Mugabe and his regime moved to tighten their grip on power, using increasingly violent tactics to stop the political opposition, stifle independent media, and take over private property. The results, particularly in the last decade, have been disastrous. Mugabe has presided over the collapse of Zimbabwe's economy and a dramatic decline in the living conditions of his people. At the end of 2008, Zimbabwe's economy reached a low point with world-record inflation, millions of people at risk of starvation, and unemployment over 90 percent. Meanwhile, Mugabe and his party have had to resort to increasing violence to repress the will of the people. Most recently, following the March 2008 election, the Mugabe regime and its cronies launched a brutal campaign of violence against members and supporters of the opposition MDC after Morgan Tsvangirai won the first round of voting.

I have closely followed the situation in Zimbabwe since 1999 when I traveled to Harare and witnessed then the early stages of this political crisis. During that trip, I also met some incredibly dynamic, committed and inspiring civil society leaders. Upon returning, I said on the Senate floor that we must not abandon these leaders; that the international community should move to arrest Zimbabwe's descent before it became more complex. I teamed up then with Senator Bill Frist to author legislation on U.S. policy toward Zimbabwe.

And in 2001, President Bush signed that legislation, the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, into law. ZDERA, as that bill is known, placed restrictions on U.S. support for any new international loan, credit or debt reduction for Zimbabwe until the President certifies that a number of political conditions have been met, namely an end to abuses and the restoration of rule of law. The bill also called for targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for politically motivated violence.

At the same time, ZDERA also spelled out the United States' commitment to the Zimbabwean people in their struggle to effect peaceful and democratic change. And it stated our commitment to be a strong partner in helping the Zimbabwean people to rebuild their country when that change was achieved. I have not given up on that commitment, despite the Mugabe regime's relentless and violent efforts to hold onto power. In 2002, I tried to return to the country, but my visa was revoked and the government blocked my entry into the country. In 2003, I traveled to South Africa and Botswana, in part to discuss the crisis in Zimbabwe and the regional consequences. Most recently, in 2008 and 2009, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Africa Subcommittee, I have held hearings specifically on Zimbabwe and U.S. policy options.

With the signing of the GPA, I was skeptical that Robert Mugabe and his allies had any real intention to share power and respect the agreement. I remain skeptical as at almost every turn, hardliners in the transitional government have resisted any moves that would undermine their historic patronage system and power structures. Mugabe has refused to implement several parts of the agreement, continuing to use Western sanctions as a scapegoat. Meanwhile, state security forces remain largely under the control of ZANU-PF and continue to harass civil society activists and participate in illegal, often violent, seizures of private land and property. In this sense, little has changed in Zimbabwe.

Yet at the same time, for many Zimbabweans, the establishment of a transitional government that includes former opposition leaders who were imprisoned and tortured as part of Zimbabwe's democratic struggle has brought forth a sense of possibility that has not existed for years. It has brought their struggle for democracy into the halls of government. And over the last year, some progress has been made toward enacting reforms. Most notably, the Finance Ministry has managed to halt Zimbabwe's economic decline and put an end to some of the disastrous fiscal activities of the previous regime. That said, progress has been slow and limited mostly to the economic sector. We cannot deceive ourselves into thinking that the return of food and other goods to stores is an indication that true democracy has taken root. Reformist elements in the government continue to lack the leverage as well as the qualified personnel and resources to overcome the resistance of hardliners and to break their hold on the security sector. They need greater support if they are going to win this struggle and achieve a genuine transition to democracy and economic recovery.

I respect those who are cautious about changing the international posture toward Zimbabwe until there is greater progress and a clear transition underway. I too am cautious, as there is good reason to be so. But at the same time, I also believe we must support the Zimbabwean people in their ongoing struggle for peaceful, democratic change and we can best do that by reconsidering some of the strict polices of years prior. We must realize that the dynamics of that struggle have changed--not as much as we would like them to go, not even close but there has been change. Adhering to a strict wait-and-see approach allows Mugabe and his allies to continue to marginalize reformers in the transitional government and manipulate the political environment, while relying on their usual anti-Western propaganda to win local and regional support. Alternatively, through proactive and targeted engagement, there may be ways that we can better support reformers in government, create incentives for others in the government to embrace such reform, and isolate the hardliners. If we are to see institutional change in Zimbabwe, it is in our interest to pursue those possibilities.

The United States has a key role to play in this regard. We continue to be very active in Zimbabwe, providing humanitarian assistance and support for civil society. In Fiscal Year 2009, the United States provided nearly $300 million to Zimbabwe, over half of which was food assistance. Over the last year, some within the administration have begun to explore ways we can better target our assistance to help reformers in order to consolidate democratic reforms and lay the groundwork for economic recovery. We have already provided some technical assistance to help certain ministries in the government. This is the right approach and we should continue to look for ways to proceed, both symbolically and substantively. At the same time, we should continue to update and increase targeted pressure on those individuals and institutions that are actively obstructing reform. We should also look for innovative ways to address illegal activities that are in violation of the GPA.

The Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2010 seeks to encourage and provide the authority and flexibility for the Obama administration to pursue such a dynamic approach toward Zimbabwe. Our bill authorizes continued and expanded technical assistance to reformist ministries of the transitional government as well as to the Parliament as it seeks to repeal or amend repressive laws. It also amends the funding restrictions on Zimbabwe in the fiscal year 2010 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill to allow for greater engagement in the areas of health and education. Furthermore, it encourages the United States to promote agricultural development as much as possible within our food assistance efforts, while we actively press the government to reestablish security of tenure for all landowners.

In addition, our bill would amend ZDERA to allow the United States greater flexibility and leverage when engaging with the International Financial Institutions on Zimbabwe. The law from 2001 restricts U.S. support for any international loan, credit or debt reduction to Zimbabwe until the President certifies that certain political conditions have been achieved in the country. This restriction currently has no discernible impact as Zimbabwe can only be eligible for such international support when it deals with its arrears, which now total billions of dollars. Nonetheless, this restriction has become a powerful symbol and it functionally ties the hands of the State and Treasury Departments to actively engage with the IMF, African Development Bank and other institutions to develop plans for supporting Zimbabwe's longer-term recovery when there is a genuine transition. Our bill would amend ZDERA to allow for such engagement, making U.S. support conditional on the proposed assistance itself, specifically whether there are sufficient controls for transparency and oversight, and whether funds will be administered by ministries that have demonstrated a commitment to reform.

Amending ZDERA will help to provide flexibility and leverage for the U.S. government, but also to undercut Mugabe's propaganda. Over the years, Mugabe and his allies have conveniently portrayed ZDERA as a symbol of Western hostility and blanket sanctions on Zimbabwe. While those allegations are clearly false, the changes made by our bill will go a long way towards ensuring they have a much harder time spinning this lie and deflecting responsibility from their own disastrous policies.

ZDERA, of course, is not to be conflated with our targeted sanctions against specific individuals and financial institutions that are directly involved in the breakdown of the rule of law and abuses of power. Our bill calls for the continuation of that program as I see no reason to terminate this sanctions program until we see an end to widespread abuses. Instead, our bill calls for the continued review and updating of those sanctions. It also encourages new action to address illegal activities involving diamonds in Zimbabwe that are reportedly fueling abuses and undermining democratic progress. Specifically, it urges the

Obama administration to consider new sanctions on individuals overseeing these activities and to press for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Kimberley Process. Zimbabwe's continued participation in the Kimberley Process undermines the integrity and important work of that process.

Finally, whenever it happens, Zimbabwe's next election will be a critical step toward any genuine transition to democratic rule and a sustainable economic recovery. The past elections have been flashpoints for increased violence and the breakdown of the rule of law. This cannot be the case this next time around if Zimbabwe is to move forward. The international community needs to prepare a coordinated strategy to help reduce the risk of violence and other abuses around such elections. Our bill directs the Obama administration to begin engaging with international partners now toward developing such a strategy.

International actions alone will not determine whether real and lasting democratic change is achieved in Zimbabwe; that will ultimately be determined by the Zimbabwean people themselves. But I do believe that we can help Zimbabweans pursue a genuine transition toward democracy and economic recovery. To do this, we need an approach that is flexible and responsive to evolving conditions and challenges on the ground. I believe this bill helps move us toward such an approach.

Nearly a decade ago, in passing ZDERA, the U.S. Congress committed to support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle to effect peaceful, democratic change, achieve economic growth and restore the rule of law. Today, we can reaffirm that commitment by passing the Zimbabwe Transition to Democracy and Economic Recovery Act. I hope my colleagues will join us in doing so.

Mr. President, today it is with sadness that I remember the life of Mary Thurmaier, who passed away on April 25. I was fortunate to know Mary, who did so much for her community and for our state.

Mary was a tireless activist and volunteer. Perhaps her most significant contribution of all was her 24 years of service on the Stevens Point Area School Board, from 1982 to 2006. Mary, a devoted mother of four herself, spent her nearly two and a half decades on the board working to strengthen public education for the children of Stevens Point. She focused much of her considerable effort on critical issues like early childhood education.

Mary also served a vital role for her community when she managed the Point Area Bus Cooperative before the city took over the operations. She did a tremendous job in that position and later went on to serve as director of the Stevens Point Convention and Visitors Bureau. She also served as a Democratic national committeewoman for Wisconsin.

Above all, Mary was a beloved wife, mother, and grandmother. My thoughts are with her family and friends today, as so many mourn her loss. I know all of us are grateful for Mary's life and her many contributions to Stevens Point and the State of Wisconsin, which will live on for many years to come.

Madam President, over the years, Members of Congress have had a lot of perks, but one of them stands out; that is, the ability to raise their own pay. Not many Americans have the power to give themselves a raise whenever they want, no matter how they are performing. To make it worse, Members do not even have to vote on this pay raise. Congress has set up a system whereby every year Members automatically get a pay raise. No one has to lift a finger.

I do not take these pay raises, and I have been fighting for years to pass my bill to end this cozy system. Thanks to the majority leader, we took an important step last year when the Senate passed legislation to end automatic annual pay raises for Members of Congress. Unfortunately, the leadership of the other body has, so far, refused to take up that bill.

Well, I am going to keep fighting to pass it, but there is another step we can take in the meantime; that is, to make sure we do not get a pay raise next year. We already enacted legislation to block a pay raise this year, and now we have to do the same thing for 2011. With so many Americans looking for jobs and trying to figure out how to pay their bills, now is no time to give ourselves a taxpayer-funded $1,600 pay increase.

I have a bill to block the scheduled 2011 pay raise.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Burr, Vitter, Bennet, Lincoln, Grassley, McCaskill, Begich, and McCain all be added as cosponsors to the bill.

Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Whitehouse be added as a cosponsor to the bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3244, a bill to prohibit a cost-of-living adjustment for Members of Congress in 2011; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, be added as a cosponsor to the bill.

Madam President, I renew my request.

Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I will be urging the other body to pass this bill as soon as possible and send it to the President. I will keep fighting so that in the future the burden will be on those who want a pay raise--not on those who want to block one--to pass legislation.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to recognize the 40th anniversary of Earth Day and to remember the man who founded Earth Day, the late Wisconsin Governor and Senator Gaylord Nelson.

Before he was the founder of Earth Day, and one of the Nation's greatest conservationists, he was a son of Wisconsin. He was a young boy growing up in the town of Clear Lake, WI, amid the great natural beauty of our State. When asked how he developed his lifelong interest and dedication to the environment, Nelson would say ``by osmosis'' while growing up in Clear Lake, WI.

He reflected the very best of our State from the beginning, building on Wisconsin's long tradition of environmental conservation. Our State passed landmark forest and waterpower conservation acts during the progressive era and lays claim not only to Gaylord Nelson but to other giants of the conservation movement such as Aldo Leopold, John Muir, and Sigurd Olson.

All of them were inspired, as Nelson was, by the beautiful Wisconsin wilderness. The natural beauty of our State charted the course of Nelson's life, from the shores of Clear Lake to the banks of the Potomac, where he changed the way we think about our planet and changed the law to protect the water we drink and the air we breathe.

There are few Members of this body, past or present, who have left such a valuable legacy. So I am proud to help celebrate that legacy with a resolution in the House and Senate celebrating the 40th anniversary of Earth Day and its founder. As we look ahead to the many challenges we face, we can draw strength from the example Gaylord set for us all. He drove tremendous change and, with Earth Day, created a new momentum that has been critical to so many efforts to protect the health of our environment.

Gaylord also understood the connection between the two great Wisconsin traditions of fiscal responsibility and conservation. Too often, a Federal program that is wasting taxpayer dollars is also laying waste to our air, our water or our public lands. The Nation's outdated mining laws are a perfect example. These laws allow the mining companies to mine on our public lands for next to nothing and leave behind an environmental mess for taxpayers to clean up.

Gaylord fought to change those laws, and when I was elected to the Senate, he asked me to take up this fight and I have. I have made it part of my Control Spending Now Act, legislation to cut the deficit by about $\1/2\ trillion over the next 10 years. If we scrap these outdated mining laws, we can save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and protect the public lands that belong to the American people. They do not belong to the mining companies.

I am also working on another environmental issue that has a special connection to Gaylord Nelson; that is, clean water. The man from Clear Lake did so much for clear, clean water everywhere, including being a champion of the Clean Water Act.

Today, the Clean Water Act is under threat because two recent Supreme Court decisions have jeopardized its protections. Those decisions put nearly 20 million acres of wetlands habitat and more than 50 percent of our stream miles in the lower 48 States at risk. These waters could now become polluted or wiped out altogether unless Congress takes action.

I am working to see that Congress stands up to the special interests that want to roll back the Clean Water Act's protections and ensure that these bodies of water can continue to provide drinking water, wildlife habitat, recreation, and support for industry and agriculture for generations of Wisconsinites to come.

So I have joined with Minnesota Representative Jim Oberstar to introduce the Clean Water Restoration Act. This bill is designed to accomplish one basic and important goal: ensure that the Clean Water Act of 1972 stays in place. There are no new regulations in our legislation, only a return to the original intent of the Clean Water Act, which has protected our waters for more than 35 years.

Gaylord Nelson and others have done so much to protect the health of our waters, and we owe it to them and to ourselves to carry that legacy forward. That is what I seek to do in the Senate with the Clean Water Restoration Act.

We face many other challenges as well. Of course, climate change looms largest of all. We need to address the serious problem of climate change and do so without unfairly hurting Wisconsin, which relies on coal for much of its energy needs. If we do this right, we have an opportunity to pass legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create energy jobs here in America. We can help American businesses gain a competitive advantage developing new renewable energy and energy efficient technologies.

The desire to protect our air, our water, and our planet will bring people together tomorrow, all around the world. They will talk about global issues we face and the local environmental issues in their communities that they want to address. They will organize, mobilize, and galvanize new momentum for change.

That is exactly what Gaylord Nelson intended. He knew the power of people coming together and what that could mean for the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the national parks and public lands we all cherish. He knew that these natural resources connect us all and that Earth Day would bring us together to protect them.

I am so grateful to have known Gaylord Nelson, and I am proud of the legacy he left behind. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, we remember the man from Clear Lake who came to this body inspired by the beautiful Wisconsin landscape of his childhood and in the end made a better world for us all.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Vermont for his kind words, for his remembering Gaylord Nelson, and, of course, for the incredible legacy of his own for the environment, coming from one of the most beautiful States in this country, Vermont. I thank him.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to repeal unwarranted and inappropriate ``sweeteners'' that were added to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the days before final passage of the bill.

These ``sweeteners'' are unjustifiable and only detract from our collective goal of putting America's health care system on a better and more sustainable path. They also undermine public confidence in the legislative process and in elected representatives in Congress.

In some cases, there are valid policy or fairness reasons why certain states or interests may receive seemingly different treatment. But several provisions were included in the health reform bill that create, rather than diminish, inequity.

This legislation would repeal four provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These provisions are not supported by policy rationales and do not address any inequity in current policy. Simply put, they are intended to provide an undeserved windfall to specific states.

This legislation also amends one provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act providing increased Medicaid assistance to States recovering from natural disaster. Because there is some justification for Louisiana receiving additional help to cope with the continued aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, my legislation leaves this provision intact, but it decreases the amount of assistance available.

I was pleased to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That law will strengthen America's health care system and reduce the national deficit and the five changes to the law that I am proposing would help us better meet those goals.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to repeal unwarranted and inappropriate ``sweeteners'' that were added to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the days before final passage of the bill.

These ``sweeteners'' are unjustifiable and only detract from our collective goal of putting America's health care system on a better and more sustainable path. They also undermine public confidence in the legislative process and in elected representatives in Congress.

In some cases, there are valid policy or fairness reasons why certain states or interests may receive seemingly different treatment. But several provisions were included in the health reform bill that create, rather than diminish, inequity.

This legislation would repeal four provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. These provisions are not supported by policy rationales and do not address any inequity in current policy. Simply put, they are intended to provide an undeserved windfall to specific states.

This legislation also amends one provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act providing increased Medicaid assistance to States recovering from natural disaster. Because there is some justification for Louisiana receiving additional help to cope with the continued aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, my legislation leaves this provision intact, but it decreases the amount of assistance available.

I was pleased to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That law will strengthen America's health care system and reduce the national deficit and the five changes to the law that I am proposing would help us better meet those goals.

Madam President, it is vitally important that we extend COBRA and unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who continue to find themselves out of work in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. At the same time, we should work to offset the cost of this additional funding through cuts in other Federal spending instead of passing this debt on to future generations.

That is why I opposed efforts to table three amendments by Senator Coburn that would have offset the additional spending, and was disappointed those amendments were all defeated. In fact, amendment No. 3727 even included two provisions from my Control Spending Now Act, a proposal to cut the deficit by around $\1/2\ trillion over the next 10 years.

While I fully supported the majority of the cuts in this amendment, I did have reservations about a few of the proposals. In particular, I had serious concerns about the idea of consolidating all federal job training programs. While the amendment would not have cut funding to any of these important job training programs, many of these job training programs serve specific populations of Americans, such as dislocated workers or young adults, and are carefully tailored to serve the unique needs of those workers. Nonetheless, the principle of taking steps to balance our Nation's checkbook is one I fully support.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would require the President to establish a flexible timetable for the responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Rep. McGovern and Rep. Jones are also introducing companion legislation in the House.

This bicameral, bipartisan legislation would make clear our timeframe and our intention to focus on a global counterterrorism strategy that is essential to our efforts to combat al Qaeda. As we were reminded again by the nearly successful attack on Christmas day, al Qaeda is an agile enemy with affiliates operating and recruiting around the world. Sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year will not help us deter or thwart attacks by al Qaeda's increasingly dangerous regional affiliates, nor will it eliminate al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan. The costly, military-centric, nation-building campaign currently underway in Afghanistan is unsustainable, unrealistic and unnecessary for our counterterrorism goals.

This bill would require the President to set a timetable for drawing down our forces in Afghanistan and identify any variables that would require an extension of that timetable. While I am disappointed by his decision to expand our military involvement in Afghanistan, I commend the President for setting a start-date for redeployment, namely July 2011. Our allies have stated that it has helped ``focus the minds'' of our partners in Afghanistan and around the world. Having a start date is essential, but alone it is insufficient--it should be accompanied by an end date, too. The President should convey to the American and Afghan people how long he anticipates it will take to complete his military objectives. So long as our large-scale military presence remains open-ended, al Qaeda will have a valuable recruiting tool and our partners in Afghanistan will have an incentive to take the back seat, leaving U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers on the hook.

As our own ambassador to Afghanistan has reportedly stated, sending more troops for an indefinite period of time will only increase Afghan dependency upon the international community, exacerbate misconceptions about why we are there and further enable Afghan leadership to shun responsibility. I do not know what led the ambassador to ultimately endorse the open-ended commitment of additional troops, but I believe his concerns remain valid today. Indeed, President Karzai's recent statements before a variety of audiences only raise more questions about his willingness to take the necessary steps to address corruption and security.

This bill does not itself set a specific date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Rather, it requires the President to set a timeline by which the redeployment of U.S. troops will be completed and to identify what variables, if any, would warrant the alteration of that timeline. While the President has set detailed objectives and metrics for Afghanistan, many of our objectives are dependent upon the conduct of officials in the Afghan and Pakistani governments, both of which have been unreliable partners for many years. We must make clear to our partners in both countries that our support is not unconditional and that we will not continue to bear the burden of our current military deployment indefinitely.

Some of my colleagues have suggested that we should give the President's new strategy in Afghanistan a ``chance'' to succeed. After over eight years of war, after so many lost lives and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, I think we need to ask ourselves instead to consider whether an open-ended military presence makes sense. To me, that answer is clearly ``No.'' We will be putting at risk the lives of 100,000 U.S. troops and spending tens of billions of dollars on a military effort that is neither necessary for the national security imperative of pursuing al Qaeda's global network, nor likely to succeed in remaking the situation on the ground in Afghanistan to a meaningful extent.

Addressing the threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world

must be our top national security priority. The attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day serves as a reminder that we have not put adequate resources into this priority, especially in safe havens such as Yemen. We are spending in Yemen only a tiny of a fraction of what we are spending in Afghanistan even though, according to the President's top terrorism advisor, ``al Qaeda has several hundred members in Yemen.'' We need major adjustments in our global counter-terrorism strategy if we hope to defeat our enemy. Rather than investing a disproportionate amount of our resources in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda has a minimal presence, we need to shift resources to the urgent need of pursuing al Qaeda's global network.

We do not need to maintain a massive military presence in Afghanistan in order to prevent al Qaeda from having freedom of movement in that country. Instead, we need a sustainable counter-terrorism strategy for the region that will also enable us to target any members of al Qaeda that make the mistake of returning. Drawing down U.S. troops from Afghanistan and better investing some of the billions needed to support them there would allow us to increase our ability to pursue al Qaeda as it continues to establish footholds in other locations around the world.

I also continue to be concerned that our massive military presence in Afghanistan has a destabilizing effect, both there and in Pakistan, and that our current strategy is overly dependent on actions by these two partners that have often proved unreliable. As our own ambassador reportedly noted, the last time we substantially increased forces in Afghanistan, namely the deployment of 33,000 additional troops in 2008 and 2009, overall violence and instability increased.

Our troop presence in Afghanistan has also provoked greater militancy. The reality is, our presence has driven militants across the border into Pakistan, and may be driving militant groups which normally have tense relationships closer together, compromising our ability to divide al Qaeda from its hosts in Pakistan.

Furthermore, our current military strategy is unlikely to succeed in the face of the ongoing safe haven in Pakistan. The Director of National Intelligence recently testified that unless the Taliban's safe haven in Pakistan ``. . . is greatly diminished, the Taliban insurgency can survive defeats in Afghanistan.'' He went on to state that ``Islamabad has maintained relationships with other Taliban-associated groups that support and conduct operations against U.S. and ISAF forces in Afghanistan.'' Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, any gains from sending additional U.S. forces may be fleeting.

Some have argued that we must pursue an open-ended military campaign in Afghanistan if only to prevent instability in Afghanistan from spreading into Pakistan. I, too, am concerned about instability in Pakistan, but I strongly disagree that sending troops to Afghanistan has helped or will improve the situation. According to our intelligence community, instability in Pakistan is driven primarily by poor governance and lack of socioeconomic reform in Pakistan. Even if we increase stability in Afghanistan, Pakistan remains at risk if these issues are not addressed. We must convey to those in Pakistan who support reform that they have our long-term support. That doesn't mean spending many billions of dollars for several years on military operations in Afghanistan. It means making a sustainable commitment to reforms in Pakistan.

We have to be realistic about our goals in Afghanistan. Without a legitimate Afghan partner, our tactical victories will likely be squandered. We may build outposts throughout Helmand and Kandahar but this has little meaning if we are unable to distinguish friend from foe and the Taliban is able to maintain shadow structures throughout the region. It does no good to ``clear'' an area of insurgents to be held by the Afghan police if the police are perceived to be corrupt or unreliable. Nor can military operations address the sense of alienation among the population in the South.

Indeed, such operations may actually undermine long-term stability as they contribute, despite our best efforts, to civilian casualties. In regards to casualties from operations related to things like checkpoints and convoys, for example, Gen. McChrystal recently acknowledged that ``[w]e've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none ha[ve] proven to have been a real threat to the force.'' This only reinforces the image of the United States as a hostile, occupying force.

Rather than spending $100 billion in Afghanistan in one year, primarily on military operations, it would be far better to make a sustainable commitment to this country. Long-term, gradual change is far more realistic than attempts to radically transform Afghan society at the point of a gun, especially when we have lost the support of key sections of the population. We must also prioritize efforts to promote the rule of law. Without the rule of law, our development efforts are vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse and will further feed into the corruption that is alienating the population from the government. Indeed, Secretary Clinton has testified that ``siphoning off contractual money from the international community . . . [is] a major source of funding for the Taliban.''

For too long, we have prioritized short term security goals at the expense of the rule of law. We have prioritized quantity over quality in the Afghan National Security Forces. We have compromised the state's monopoly over the use of violence by partnering with--in Gen. McChrystal's words--``polarizing and predatory'' powerbrokers. We have turned a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuses. If we get serious about these issues, it will do more to stabilize the situation than anything we can accomplish by conducting military operations. After so many years in which our military efforts have been shortchanged by the focus on Iraq, we cannot simply turn back the clock and assume that what may have been achievable militarily in Afghanistan years ago is still achievable today.

Even if my colleagues support the President's strategy in Afghanistan, they should acknowledge the need to set a goal for when it should be brought to a close. While I have serious doubts about the wisdom of the current approach, as I have explained, and about pursuing an expansive nation-building agenda in the face of the economic problems facing our own country and the rising casualty rates in Afghanistan, this bill does not dictate a particular strategy for Afghanistan. Rather, it simply requires the President to inform the American people about how long his military strategy is expected to take.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would require the President to establish a flexible timetable for the responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Rep. McGovern and Rep. Jones are also introducing companion legislation in the House.

This bicameral, bipartisan legislation would make clear our timeframe and our intention to focus on a global counterterrorism strategy that is essential to our efforts to combat al Qaeda. As we were reminded again by the nearly successful attack on Christmas day, al Qaeda is an agile enemy with affiliates operating and recruiting around the world. Sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan this year will not help us deter or thwart attacks by al Qaeda's increasingly dangerous regional affiliates, nor will it eliminate al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan. The costly, military-centric, nation-building campaign currently underway in Afghanistan is unsustainable, unrealistic and unnecessary for our counterterrorism goals.

This bill would require the President to set a timetable for drawing down our forces in Afghanistan and identify any variables that would require an extension of that timetable. While I am disappointed by his decision to expand our military involvement in Afghanistan, I commend the President for setting a start-date for redeployment, namely July 2011. Our allies have stated that it has helped ``focus the minds'' of our partners in Afghanistan and around the world. Having a start date is essential, but alone it is insufficient--it should be accompanied by an end date, too. The President should convey to the American and Afghan people how long he anticipates it will take to complete his military objectives. So long as our large-scale military presence remains open-ended, al Qaeda will have a valuable recruiting tool and our partners in Afghanistan will have an incentive to take the back seat, leaving U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers on the hook.

As our own ambassador to Afghanistan has reportedly stated, sending more troops for an indefinite period of time will only increase Afghan dependency upon the international community, exacerbate misconceptions about why we are there and further enable Afghan leadership to shun responsibility. I do not know what led the ambassador to ultimately endorse the open-ended commitment of additional troops, but I believe his concerns remain valid today. Indeed, President Karzai's recent statements before a variety of audiences only raise more questions about his willingness to take the necessary steps to address corruption and security.

This bill does not itself set a specific date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Rather, it requires the President to set a timeline by which the redeployment of U.S. troops will be completed and to identify what variables, if any, would warrant the alteration of that timeline. While the President has set detailed objectives and metrics for Afghanistan, many of our objectives are dependent upon the conduct of officials in the Afghan and Pakistani governments, both of which have been unreliable partners for many years. We must make clear to our partners in both countries that our support is not unconditional and that we will not continue to bear the burden of our current military deployment indefinitely.

Some of my colleagues have suggested that we should give the President's new strategy in Afghanistan a ``chance'' to succeed. After over eight years of war, after so many lost lives and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, I think we need to ask ourselves instead to consider whether an open-ended military presence makes sense. To me, that answer is clearly ``No.'' We will be putting at risk the lives of 100,000 U.S. troops and spending tens of billions of dollars on a military effort that is neither necessary for the national security imperative of pursuing al Qaeda's global network, nor likely to succeed in remaking the situation on the ground in Afghanistan to a meaningful extent.

Addressing the threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates around the world

must be our top national security priority. The attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day serves as a reminder that we have not put adequate resources into this priority, especially in safe havens such as Yemen. We are spending in Yemen only a tiny of a fraction of what we are spending in Afghanistan even though, according to the President's top terrorism advisor, ``al Qaeda has several hundred members in Yemen.'' We need major adjustments in our global counter-terrorism strategy if we hope to defeat our enemy. Rather than investing a disproportionate amount of our resources in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda has a minimal presence, we need to shift resources to the urgent need of pursuing al Qaeda's global network.

We do not need to maintain a massive military presence in Afghanistan in order to prevent al Qaeda from having freedom of movement in that country. Instead, we need a sustainable counter-terrorism strategy for the region that will also enable us to target any members of al Qaeda that make the mistake of returning. Drawing down U.S. troops from Afghanistan and better investing some of the billions needed to support them there would allow us to increase our ability to pursue al Qaeda as it continues to establish footholds in other locations around the world.

I also continue to be concerned that our massive military presence in Afghanistan has a destabilizing effect, both there and in Pakistan, and that our current strategy is overly dependent on actions by these two partners that have often proved unreliable. As our own ambassador reportedly noted, the last time we substantially increased forces in Afghanistan, namely the deployment of 33,000 additional troops in 2008 and 2009, overall violence and instability increased.

Our troop presence in Afghanistan has also provoked greater militancy. The reality is, our presence has driven militants across the border into Pakistan, and may be driving militant groups which normally have tense relationships closer together, compromising our ability to divide al Qaeda from its hosts in Pakistan.

Furthermore, our current military strategy is unlikely to succeed in the face of the ongoing safe haven in Pakistan. The Director of National Intelligence recently testified that unless the Taliban's safe haven in Pakistan ``. . . is greatly diminished, the Taliban insurgency can survive defeats in Afghanistan.'' He went on to state that ``Islamabad has maintained relationships with other Taliban-associated groups that support and conduct operations against U.S. and ISAF forces in Afghanistan.'' Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, any gains from sending additional U.S. forces may be fleeting.

Some have argued that we must pursue an open-ended military campaign in Afghanistan if only to prevent instability in Afghanistan from spreading into Pakistan. I, too, am concerned about instability in Pakistan, but I strongly disagree that sending troops to Afghanistan has helped or will improve the situation. According to our intelligence community, instability in Pakistan is driven primarily by poor governance and lack of socioeconomic reform in Pakistan. Even if we increase stability in Afghanistan, Pakistan remains at risk if these issues are not addressed. We must convey to those in Pakistan who support reform that they have our long-term support. That doesn't mean spending many billions of dollars for several years on military operations in Afghanistan. It means making a sustainable commitment to reforms in Pakistan.

We have to be realistic about our goals in Afghanistan. Without a legitimate Afghan partner, our tactical victories will likely be squandered. We may build outposts throughout Helmand and Kandahar but this has little meaning if we are unable to distinguish friend from foe and the Taliban is able to maintain shadow structures throughout the region. It does no good to ``clear'' an area of insurgents to be held by the Afghan police if the police are perceived to be corrupt or unreliable. Nor can military operations address the sense of alienation among the population in the South.

Indeed, such operations may actually undermine long-term stability as they contribute, despite our best efforts, to civilian casualties. In regards to casualties from operations related to things like checkpoints and convoys, for example, Gen. McChrystal recently acknowledged that ``[w]e've shot an amazing number of people and killed a number and, to my knowledge, none ha[ve] proven to have been a real threat to the force.'' This only reinforces the image of the United States as a hostile, occupying force.

Rather than spending $100 billion in Afghanistan in one year, primarily on military operations, it would be far better to make a sustainable commitment to this country. Long-term, gradual change is far more realistic than attempts to radically transform Afghan society at the point of a gun, especially when we have lost the support of key sections of the population. We must also prioritize efforts to promote the rule of law. Without the rule of law, our development efforts are vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse and will further feed into the corruption that is alienating the population from the government. Indeed, Secretary Clinton has testified that ``siphoning off contractual money from the international community . . . [is] a major source of funding for the Taliban.''

For too long, we have prioritized short term security goals at the expense of the rule of law. We have prioritized quantity over quality in the Afghan National Security Forces. We have compromised the state's monopoly over the use of violence by partnering with--in Gen. McChrystal's words--``polarizing and predatory'' powerbrokers. We have turned a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuses. If we get serious about these issues, it will do more to stabilize the situation than anything we can accomplish by conducting military operations. After so many years in which our military efforts have been shortchanged by the focus on Iraq, we cannot simply turn back the clock and assume that what may have been achievable militarily in Afghanistan years ago is still achievable today.

Even if my colleagues support the President's strategy in Afghanistan, they should acknowledge the need to set a goal for when it should be brought to a close. While I have serious doubts about the wisdom of the current approach, as I have explained, and about pursuing an expansive nation-building agenda in the face of the economic problems facing our own country and the rising casualty rates in Afghanistan, this bill does not dictate a particular strategy for Afghanistan. Rather, it simply requires the President to inform the American people about how long his military strategy is expected to take.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.