Floor Statements

Madam President, over the past 2 years, our country has been struggling to recover from one of the worst economic recessions in our history. Democrats have worked to pass legislation that would create jobs. It has been our top priority. But at every turn, we faced resistance from ideologues who care more about winning political points and protecting the wealthy than doing what is right for hard-working American families.

That is exactly what happened during this debt-ceiling debate. Instead of passing a clean extension and getting to work on our economy, we have been forced to vote on a last-minute deal to prevent the economic catastrophe that would result in default.

I spent the last few weeks and months highlighting the real-life consequences of default for New Mexico families. At a time when families are already dealing with extremely tight budgets, a default would mean increased costs for just about everything, from food, to gas, to housing, to sending the kids to college. It would also jeopardize critical Federal benefits that veterans, seniors, and others depend on to pay the bills and stay healthy. It would mean more than 360,000 New Mexicans would be in danger of losing their Social Security benefits. It would mean another 300,000 who rely on Medicare seeing their health care disrupted. It would mean 174,000 New Mexico veterans may not receive their benefits, and more than 1,400 Active-Duty military personnel may not receive paychecks for their services.

But it wouldn't stop there. Even if you don't depend on a check from the Federal Government every month for health care or retirement or other benefits, you would still feel the financial pain of default. That is because mortgage payments would increase by more than $1,000 for the average family and credit card interest would go up by $250. Why is that, you ask. Because the interest you pay on just about every loan you have, whether it is a house or a car or college tuition, is based on the interest rates the Treasury pays, and if that interest rate rises, as it would in a default, so does the interest rate on just about everything else. New Mexicans can't afford that. America can't afford that. And it is to prevent New Mexico families from these repercussions that I will vote for this legislation. But that is the only reason because, to be frank, almost everything else about this deal stinks, and it stinks to high heaven.

As my friend the good Senator from Vermont said yesterday, this package is grotesquely unfair and bad economic policy. While I firmly believe we must take steps to rein in our deficit, this package is far from the ideal way to do so.

I hear every day from New Mexicans about the need to rebuild our economy. We should be investing in innovation and infrastructure and creating new jobs, but we don't do that with this deal. Instead of cutting excess and investing wisely in programs that create jobs, this package will mean fewer dollars for job training, education programs, and housing, hampering our ability to create a long-term recovery.

Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans support shared sacrifice in this recovery. Unfortunately, this package also falls woefully short on that count. While we did manage to protect important programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and nutrition assistance programs, there are still many important programs that will be on the chopping block, initiatives such as housing assistance, help for small businesses, and rural economic development programs, just to name a few--this all the while the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations remain untouched.

This package is what happens when ideologues bent on nationalizing their extreme agendas get their way. The fracture we have seen among Republicans in the House over the last few months has much broader effect than just in that Chamber. Their staunch refusal to compromise at the expense of struggling families has pushed this debate and our Nation to the brink.

Instead of having a frank conversation about how we can repair our economy and reach a simple compromise, we have been forced to vote today to avoid default. With this plan, we get nowhere near the heart of our economic problems. Instead, we kick the can down the road a couple of years, all the while the problem continues to grow, impeding our recovery and crippling our economic competitiveness.

Once this vote is taken and the immediate crisis is passed, it will be all too easy to stick our heads back in the sand and pretend everything is OK. I rise today to say this: Everything is not OK, and it won't be OK until we have the courage and leadership to institute tax reform--not just trimming

around the edges or rearranging the numbers to create the illusion of savings when, in fact, nothing has changed; I am talking about substantive tax reform that is the result of a national conversation about our priorities as a society. We have the opportunity to do just that with the commission being created by this plan, but it will take guts and leadership and hard choices.

Our national deficit is a burden that drags us down competitively and requires serious negotiations, not just concessions to those who see this as a political opportunity to push their personal agendas. We must all come to the table and do what is best for our Nation.

I see the Senator from Florida is here. I know he is a wise gentleman who has much to say to us.

So with that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act, legislation that will crack down on smugglers who use ultralight aircraft, also known as ULAs, to bring drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border. I am pleased to be working on this in a bipartisan manner with Senator Heller, who introduced a very similar bill last year in the House with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. That bill passed overwhelmingly by a 412-3 vote. I hope we can have a similar bipartisan result here in the Senate.

ULAs are single-pilot aircraft capable of flying low, landing and taking off quickly, and are typically used for sport or for recreation. However, because of increased detection and interdiction of more traditional smuggling conveyances, ULAs have increasingly been employed along the Southwest border by Mexican drug trafficking organizations to smuggle drugs into the United States.

The use of ULAs by drug smugglers presents a unique challenge for Border Patrol and prosecutors. Every year hundreds of ULAs are flown across the Southwest border and each one can carry hundreds of pounds of narcotics. Under existing law, ULAs are not categorized as aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration, so they do not fall under the aviation smuggling provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. This means that a drug smuggler piloting a small airplane is subject to much stronger criminal penalties than a smuggler who pilots a ULA.

Our bill will close this unintended loophole and establish the same penalties if convicted--a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $25,000 fine--for smuggling drugs on ULAs as currently exist for smuggling on airplanes or in automobiles. This is a common sense solution that will give our law enforcement agencies and prosecutors additional tools they need to combat drug smuggling.

The bill would also add an attempt and conspiracy provision to the aviation smuggling law to allow prosecutors to charge people other than the pilot who are involved in aviation smuggling. This would give them a new tool to prosecute the ground crews who aid the pilots as well as those who pick up the drug loads that are dropped from ULAs in the U.S. Finally, the bill directs the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to collaborate in identifying equipment and technology used by DOD that could be used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to detect ULAs.

In addition to Senator Heller, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bingaman and Feinstein in introducing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act, legislation that will crack down on smugglers who use ultralight aircraft, also known as ULAs, to bring drugs across the U.S.-Mexico border. I am pleased to be working on this in a bipartisan manner with Senator Heller, who introduced a very similar bill last year in the House with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. That bill passed overwhelmingly by a 412-3 vote. I hope we can have a similar bipartisan result here in the Senate.

ULAs are single-pilot aircraft capable of flying low, landing and taking off quickly, and are typically used for sport or for recreation. However, because of increased detection and interdiction of more traditional smuggling conveyances, ULAs have increasingly been employed along the Southwest border by Mexican drug trafficking organizations to smuggle drugs into the United States.

The use of ULAs by drug smugglers presents a unique challenge for Border Patrol and prosecutors. Every year hundreds of ULAs are flown across the Southwest border and each one can carry hundreds of pounds of narcotics. Under existing law, ULAs are not categorized as aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration, so they do not fall under the aviation smuggling provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930. This means that a drug smuggler piloting a small airplane is subject to much stronger criminal penalties than a smuggler who pilots a ULA.

Our bill will close this unintended loophole and establish the same penalties if convicted--a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $25,000 fine--for smuggling drugs on ULAs as currently exist for smuggling on airplanes or in automobiles. This is a common sense solution that will give our law enforcement agencies and prosecutors additional tools they need to combat drug smuggling.

The bill would also add an attempt and conspiracy provision to the aviation smuggling law to allow prosecutors to charge people other than the pilot who are involved in aviation smuggling. This would give them a new tool to prosecute the ground crews who aid the pilots as well as those who pick up the drug loads that are dropped from ULAs in the U.S. Finally, the bill directs the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to collaborate in identifying equipment and technology used by DOD that could be used by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to detect ULAs.

In addition to Senator Heller, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bingaman and Feinstein in introducing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution with Senator Jeff Bingaman honoring the bravery and sacrifice of Santa Fe, New Mexico native Sergeant First Class Leroy Arthur Petry, an Army Ranger who in 2008 risked his life to save his fellow soldiers on the battlefields of Afghanistan and who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by President Obama in July.

I was humbled to be at the White House along with Sergeant First Class Petry's family, friends, and fellow soldiers as President Obama honored him with the Congressional Medal of Honor. It was truly a special day for everyone involved as we honored only the second living, active-duty service member to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor for actions in Iraq or Afghanistan.

On July 12, I detailed the actions of Sergeant First Class Petry. Under enemy fire, with bullet wounds in both of his legs, Sergeant First Class Petry still had the courage and valor to render aid to his fellow Rangers and to throw a grenade that landed near his fellow soldiers back towards the enemy.

When the grenade exploded, it took with it Sergeant First Class Petry's hand, but not his spirit. Not even the loss of a hand would stop him from fighting the enemy and supporting his unit. He would tie a tourniquet to his arm and continue the fight.

As I have said before, Sergeant First Class Petry's story is one of courage and sacrifice and immense love of country. It is a story that began years ago in Santa Fe with a young man who struggled in high school but refused to give up, to drop out and instead buckled down, dug deep, and found the hero within. A hero to the men he saved that fateful day in Afghanistan, and a hero to all Americans who owe their freedoms to our brave men and women in uniform.

Today, let us honor him further with this resolution and send the message that Congress honors his service and sacrifice.

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

Madam President, I rise today as our Nation honors the bravery and sacrifice of Santa Fe native Leroy Arthur Petry, an Army Ranger who, in 2008, risked his life to save his fellow soldiers on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

Today Sergeant First Class Petry will be honored for his ``conspicuous gallantry'' with our Nation's highest military decoration: the Medal of Honor.

I will be humbled to be at the White House along with Sergeant First Class Petry's family, friends, and fellow soldiers as President Obama honors him with the Congressional Medal of Honor.

It will be a special day for Sergeant First Class Petry, for his wife and his children, and all his family, and for his fellow Americans, as he becomes only the second living active-duty servicemember to receive the Medal of Honor for actions in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Sergeant First Class Petry's story is one of courage and sacrifice and immense love of country. It is a story that began years ago in Santa Fe with a young man who struggled in high school but refused to give up and, instead, buckled down, dug deep, and found the hero within--a hero to the men he saved on that fateful day in Afghanistan, and a hero to all Americans who owe their freedoms to our brave men and women in uniform. It is the story of that day in May of 2008 that I wish to tell you today.

Sergeant First Class Petry was a member of the 75th Ranger Regiment when he and his fellow rangers were deployed to capture a high-value target in Afghanistan. During their raid, they were engaged in a firefight with the enemy when several in their regiment were pinned down by grenades.

Petry had already been wounded by bullet fire, shot through both legs by a hidden enemy. But Petry did not allow his wounds to stop him as the battle raged on. Pinned inside a courtyard with a fellow ranger, he continued the fight, calling in support and creating a brief pause in enemy fire by throwing a grenade their way.

One enemy grenade exploded within 10 yards of Petry and a group of rangers. The explosion knocked the rangers down and wounded two members of the team.

Soon after the first grenade exploded, the insurgents threw a second. This time the grenade landed near two of Petry's comrades. With no thought to his personal safety, Ranger Petry grabbed the grenade and attempted to toss it away. The grenade exploded as he tossed it, taking Petry's hand with it, but saving the lives of those near him.

Losing a hand would have been enough to break most people, but not Sergeant First Class Petry. Instead, he calmly inspected his wound, stemmed the flow of blood with a tourniquet, and continued the fight, helping to pin down the insurgents until they could be killed.

It was this immense act of bravery that saved the lives of his brothers in arms. In fact, one of his fellow rangers, SGT Daniel Higgins, wrote in a statement about that day:

If not for Staff Sergeant Petry's actions, we would have

been seriously wounded or killed.

On that fateful day in 2008, then-Staff Sergeant Petry was no stranger to service to his country. He was on his eighth deployment-- let me repeat that: his eighth deployment--in support of U.S. operations overseas, his sixth in Afghanistan, after two tours in Iraq.

Sergeant First Class Petry's life of heroic service was based in humble beginnings. A 1998 story in the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper featured a then 18-year-old Petry. The young man was a senior at St. Catherine Indian school--the institution's final graduating class. He was also a recipient of the ``Bootstrap'' award, which honored area high school seniors who had committed to improving themselves and their community.

Here is what the teacher who nominated him wrote:

With a record of fights, suspensions, and ditching school,

Petry realized that he was on a path that led nowhere. He

tried harder in school and appreciated how it felt to make

his parents proud.

From a path to nowhere to a path to history as a national hero, Sergeant First Class Petry is an inspiration for all young people who are struggling to find their place in the world. To young people who may be considering giving up and taking a more destructive path, he is a model.

Three years after his heroic actions on the battlefield, Sergeant First Class Petry continues to give back to his country and his fellow soldiers. As a liaison officer for the U.S. Special Operations Command Care Coalition in Washington State, Sergeant First Class Petry provides a helping hand and much needed resources to wounded soldiers, ill and injured servicemembers, and their families.

Here is what Leroy's father Larry Petry said of his son in a recent interview with a local New Mexico television station:

He's really overwhelmed by this. He keeps saying, ``Dad, I

was just doing my job. Any other soldier would have done

it.''

I think we will all agree with what his father said in return:

Well, son, you did something great, and they really want to

honor you for that.

Despite all the attention and recognition brought by this award, Petry--like so many of those brave warriors before him--remains humble. A recent posting on his Facebook page reads:

The award is bigger than the person . . . and I will always

remember that.

New Mexico has a long and proud tradition of military service-- exemplified in the heroic actions of SFC Leroy Petry on the battlefields of Afghanistan.

To Sergeant First Class Petry's wife Ashley and their four children, to his mother and father and siblings and extended family, I know I speak for the people of New Mexico and all of America when I offer the thanks of a grateful nation. You sacrificed time with your loved ones so he could bravely serve our country. Along with Sergeant First Class Petry, you are all heroes in our eyes.

Sergeant First Class Petry is highly deserving of this honor, and New Mexico is honored to call him a native son.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have two things I would like to talk about. First, I wish to deal with the resolution we have on the floor that we had a vote on today, which was this motion to proceed to S. 1323, a bill to express the sense of the Senate on shared sacrifice and resolving the budget. I think it is important that we realize what is in this sense of the Senate. The findings the Congress makes here are very important, and I would like to read these three findings.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the median pay for chief financial officers of the S&P 500 companies increased 19 percent to $2.9 million last year. And then you compare that with the middle class over the last 10 years--the median family income has declined by more than $2,500. Mr. President, 20 percent of all income earned in the United States is earned by the top 1 percent of individuals. Over the past quarter century, four-fifths of the income gains accrued to the top 1 percent of individuals.

So we conclude in this sense of the Senate--it is the sense of the Senate that any agreement to reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1 million or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort. And that is what we have been talking about today; that is what our leaders are doing--meeting at the White House with the President--is trying to come up with a budget deal and a resolution to this that involves shared sacrifice and involves putting us on a path to better budget responsibility, reducing the national budget deficit. Clearly part of this has to do with millionaires paying more of their fair share.

Now, we got 74 votes on the motion to proceed, but I heard many people say--many Senators walked on the floor and said: Well, I am voting for the motion to proceed, to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed, but I am not sure I support the bill. But I think the 74 votes show a little bit of bipartisanship in terms of a mix of revenue and expenditure cuts. That is the point I wanted to make on this resolution.

First of all, I hear things from the White House that worry me because what has been said when we talk about a package--and they are talking about the overall package--is they say: We are going to have a ratio of 1 to 3, meaning 75 percent cuts and only 25 percent revenue, so three-quarters in cuts and one-quarter in revenue.

Now, how does that compare to how we got out of deficit situations in the past? I think that is one of the most important things to look at because we were in a big hole in the 1980s. The Reagan administration took us down that road and President Clinton and President Bush 1 had to deal with that situation. What did they come up with? They came up with an agreement which was basically 55 percent revenue and 45 percent cuts. So it was about a 50-50 situation.

I urge the President to look at the budget. We have only been briefed in a very cursory way on the budget Kent Conrad has prepared, but it comes in at about 50-50 in terms of revenue and cuts.

We have to realize we are at the lowest Federal revenue we have seen in 60 years and the highest Federal expenditures we have seen in 60 years. So we have to work at both sides of this. So that is where I hope the President comes in with some kind of proposal as he is negotiating this, and I look forward to him doing that.

New Mexico Wildfires

The other topic I wish to speak about is the wildfires in New Mexico. I spent the last week in my State of New Mexico. I stayed there. I started to go to the plane, and I kept hearing the reports from my staff, and one of the most shocking was the entire community of Los Alamos--12,000 people--was evacuated because a forest fire was coming in their direction. As I kept getting the reports and the evacuation had started to take place, I thought: Well, the best thing to do is to not fly out but to go back to the community of Los Alamos and the surrounding communities and try to assist in any way I could.

I want to talk a little bit about that. I think there are some lessons to be learned in terms of budgets and deficits and how we should invest. But first I want to thank the Senators who helped me while I was gone. As the Presiding Officer, Senator Franken, knows, we are assigned weekly duties in terms of presiding, and I was supposed to preside last week. So three of my colleagues, Senator Durbin, Senator Merkley, and my cousin, Senator Mark Udall, stepped up to help me with presiding time. I had an amendment that was on the floor when we were dealing with the rules package, and Senator Harkin helped me with that proposal. So there was a real team effort within our Democratic caucus to help me to be able to work on the wildfire issue out in New Mexico and stay there and have my capable staff and the other Senators help out. I really thank everybody for that team effort.

The wildfires that are raging across New Mexico are not only in New Mexico. A number of States have been hit: Texas, Arizona, Florida, and my home State of New Mexico. Generally, what we see in this country is the fire season starts at the southern part and moves up to the north as we go through the summer season. In the Southwest, we have had an extraordinary fire season. I was just briefed by Secretary Vilsack when I was out there. He spoke in the southwest region about 1,600-plus fires burning 1.5 million acres. This is still very early in the fire season. We could see a lot more burning going on. Then, the thing that really hit me was the fact that we were told this is the driest recorded summer since the Forest Service has been keeping records. So it is pretty remarkable we are in this kind of situation where we have a drought and then we have fires that heat up.

This particular fire, for New Mexico--the name of it is called the Las Conchas fire right near Los Alamos. As we speak, it is more than 135,000 acres. It is almost three times as big as the previous fire situation we have seen.

What happens with these forest fires in our dry, arid region is we get extreme heat within the forest, and we get what are called crown fires, where the tops of the trees--these trees may be 30 to 50 to 100 feet tall, and the fires burn in the top of the crown. They can spread when there is a 40- or 50-mile-an-hour wind, as there was in some cases here. They can be in the crown of the trees and they can jump out a mile in advance with embers and create additional fire in front of it. As a result of the heat--very intensive heat; I think close to 1,000 degrees right in the heat of the fire--it makes the soil unable to absorb water any longer, which is something that creates a situation when we get our rainy season, which occurs right after the fire season, we can have serious flood situations. The soil will not absorb water, so when the rains come all of the soil on the surface washes off. It washes into the reservoirs. It can fill them up with silt. Some of those are used for recreation, for fishing; others are used for drinking water. For example, several of the communities in northern New Mexico get 40 percent, 50 percent of their drinking water from these reservoirs. So these kinds of forest fires can be absolutely devastating to communities.

But the one thing we were thankful for, because of the Federal firefighters, is the worst case scenarios didn't occur. One of the things that was expected--and I think many saw this covered on the national media--is this might get into the National Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory; that there was going to be radiation released and those kinds of things. In fact, we dodged a bullet there. It didn't go into Los Alamos National Laboratory. The labs and the residences were protected.

There was another fire burning nearby that threatened the Santa Fe watershed. The fire changed directions and because of the skillful firefighting it didn't get into the watershed. So we dodged a bullet. But many other areas--many other areas--were severely impacted, and many other groups were.

For example, New Mexico's Indian pueblos--we have 19 pueblos in New Mexico. Some of them were terribly impacted by this: the Nambe Pueblo, the Santa Clara Pueblo, San Ildefonso Pueblo, the Ohkay Pueblo, Owingeh

Pueblo, and many other pueblos. One of the most damaged pueblos was the Santa Clara Pueblo. The Governor is a gentleman by the name of Walter Dasheno. He and some of his counselors had come to a meeting. Eighty- five percent of this Indian reservation has been burned in the last two big fires. What they said when we were sitting in a room--and these are the elders from the pueblo who came to talk to us--they said: Our hearts are in a very sad state. The fire devastated our religious sites, our sacred sites. We had medicinal plants we would collect in this area. We can't do that any longer.

With great emotion these elders said: We are never going to see this forest in the same condition again. So, obviously, the loss was great at Santa Clara, but it was all across New Mexico, of those pueblos that I just named, and it is a very significant loss.

The first thing I wish to do in speaking today is to thank all the firefighters who were involved in this effort. I think we have fighting just this one fire 2,600 firefighters from all over the Nation--15 different States. It is incredibly tough work--difficult, tough, dirty work.

I met many of these firefighters out on the front where they were fighting the fire. Some of them would talk about how they had been away from their families for 2 weeks. They hadn't had a shower. They were sleeping in tents. It is a tremendously trying occupation, being a firefighter, but they believe in it. They show up every day, and they do an incredible job. They were supported by our National Guard which guarded the community of Los Alamos while the people were evacuated to make sure there wasn't any crime going on. The State police patrolled the roads to try to make sure they could keep order. Local law enforcement, local firefighters participated, the local fire departments.

So it was an incredible effort by our community pulling together. One of the most remarkable things is the expertise at the Federal level in Federal land management agencies and firefighters. These teams are headed up--typically, we will have a type 1 and a type 2 team, and the head of the team called the incident commander will probably have 20, 25, 30 years of experience in fighting fires every summer around the country. These are career people from the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, the Park Service, and a variety of other Federal agencies that step to the plate and help out when we get in these emergency situations.

As I said, they come from all over the country to work in the States that are impacted, and then as the fire season spreads north up to Colorado and Wyoming and Montana, those same firefighters move on to continue the battle up there.

One of the points I take from this, one of the things I learned from this--and I think President Lincoln said this very well: Government does for people what they can't do for themselves. Collectively, we pull together when we hit situations where if we have an individual who has a home in Los Alamos, there is not much he can do with a big forest fire coming in his direction. But we can organize as a governmental entity to say when we get big catastrophic fires such as this, we are going to have people who are competent, who are capable, and who have all of this experience in fighting fires who will come together and help out. That is something we need to protect.

When we think of debating budgets and deficits and all of that, there is a very important function that government serves out there, and we need to protect that safety net function, that collective function where we help each other. I think this firefighting is a great example of where government is needed and we could be devastated if we didn't have the expertise that the government has in terms of fighting fires.

The other thing I saw at these fires--and it was pretty remarkable. When I have been to tornado sites in New Mexico, when I have been to some of the flood situations, what stands out for me is how New Mexicans pull together in this situation--New Mexicans helping New Mexicans. The pueblos I talked about that were so impacted by the fires, they actually opened other sites on their reservations so the evacuees coming out of Los Alamos, the 12,000 people--several of these pueblos said: We are going to open our convention center and let them set up cots, and we are going to feed the people. We are going to do everything we can to help with this situation.

At the same time, their particular pueblo was being devastated by a forest fire. So there was an extraordinary outpouring of goodwill that New Mexicans have shown in this kind of emergency situation. It is remarkable to see in a time of need people pulling together and doing that in such a way that it brings tears to your eyes.

There was one individual I want to talk about. I was in talking to a group of people who were training for a charity that was going to help the evacuees--help them serve meals, help them set up cots, help them be organized. I got a question from the floor, and the individual said to me: I have lived in Los Alamos, and I had to come down here. I am an evacuee, but I found a friend who was able to put me up. I know there are other people who do not have that situation. So I am out here today training with the American Red Cross because I want to help the others, and I want to try to give back.

That is the spirit we have seen in New Mexico, that even if you were in need and had been driven from your home, you were still trying to help out. I think it is a pretty remarkable story.

One of the things we are going to have to do as we look across the country--and we see floods in the Midwest and wildfires in the Southwest and tornadoes--all of these things require a disaster relief bill, they require disaster relief funding for agencies that deal with fires and all these other natural disasters.

These things are very costly for local government. FEMA steps in and helps out with the Governor making a request. The Forest Service helps out. There are burn area rehabilitation teams that move in right after a fire to try to protect the erosion so there are not bad floods.

We have to try to do everything we can to make sure we maintain, once again, in this deficit situation, that kind of responsibility. The Federal Government has to help. Even within a deficit situation, we have to have a disaster relief kind of effort. The idea that we are going to somehow change the way we do disasters now, that we are going to take money away from Medicaid in order to put it into disasters, is I do not think a very good idea. So I think when we talk about how we do disaster relief, we need to remember we are all in this together, and when disasters hit, we need to help each other.

To show you the kind of pressure we are under in New Mexico, Secretary Vilsack, with the Forest Service, was out in New Mexico, and the one plea he made to the congressional delegation--because we were talking to him about watersheds that mean clean drinking water and that kind of situation--the Secretary said: I have a program that is called the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. It is for all over the country. It is for when we get into these kinds of wildfires, floods-- whatever the situation is. He said: We have $9 million--$9 million--in the account. He said: Already, before your requests or any others have come in from New Mexico and other States--I know there are five fires down in Florida and fires in Texas and Arizona--we have $45 million in requests.

So there is $9 million in the account, $45 million in requests. What we are talking about, when we talk about watersheds, is drinking water not deteriorating and that kind of thing. So we need to remember there is a lot the Federal Government does in a shared way with local communities to protect those communities.

My final note, to talk a little bit about the biggest picture here. That is about climate change and global warming. We are seeing these wildfires, droughts, and floods as we have never seen before. I have seen Senators from all over the country talking about these disaster situations. The scientists tell us we are putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we are warming the atmosphere. In the West--what the scientists tell us--it is going to be twice as hot in the West, the computer models show, than in other places in the country. While the climate scientists are very cautious with their modeling and what they say,

they say: You cannot point to any particular storm. I cannot say that particular fire that occurred in New Mexico--the Las Conchas fire--was caused by global warming or climate change.

They also tell us--and this is the part we need to listen to--the scientists tell us what we are going to see as a result of this is more severe weather events, meaning more severe: If you get into a drought situation, it is going to be a more severe drought, which is exactly what we are seeing in New Mexico right now. When you get floods, you are going to see a more severe flood. You are going to see more severe wildfires. These are all what we are seeing today in New Mexico. We are seeing them across the Nation. We have seen extreme floods in New Mexico, catastrophic forest fires.

We are seeing droughts we have not seen before. The Forest Service has been keeping records for 117 years, and they reported to us there is no record for how dry we are right now. This is the driest year we have ever had, which laid the groundwork for the wildfires we had with the wind and all the other things that occurred.

So we cannot put our heads in the sand in terms of climate change, in terms of global warming. We have to look at these things and realize we are contributing to them, and we need to put policies in place, solid policies that put us on a path to reducing that carbon dioxide pollution that is out there.

With that, I thank the Presiding Officer very much and thank the Senate for the time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, 6 months ago, I joined my colleagues and friends Senator Merkley of Oregon and Senator Harkin of Iowa to push for fundamental reforms in how the Senate operates. The reason we did that was simple: the Senate was broken. The unprecedented abuse of the filibuster and of other procedural tactics was routinely preventing the Senate from getting its work done. It was preventing us from doing the job the American people sent us here to do.

Although the reform proposals we offered in January did not pass, I thought some good came out of the process. We passed resolutions to eliminate secret holds and the delaying tactic of forcing the reading of amendments. We also agreed to consider legislation in the future that would exempt many executive branch nominees from the Senate confirmation process. Legislation that we are considering on this floor today.

Although these were steps in the right direction, I believe there is still a long way to go before this body can function as our Founders intended. The unfortunate reality is that over the last six months, this already broken institution has become even more dysfunctional.

Let's consider what the Senate has accomplished this year. A Bloomberg article from last week notes that, ``just 18 measures have cleared Congress and become law this year, and only four of those originated in the Senate--including two that named courthouses.'' That is simply unacceptable. At a time when our country needs us to act, we do almost nothing.

A Washington Post article from June 9 discusses quorum calls in the Senate. It states:

This year--even as Washington lurches closer to a debt

crisis--the Senate has spent a historic amount of time

performing this time-killing ritual. Quorum calls have taken

up about a third of its time since January.

That is the equivalent of more than 17 8-hour days wasted in quorum calls. That article goes on to state that there have been just 87 rollcall votes as of June 9 compared to 205 in the same period in 2009.

I don't blame one party for these problems--both sides are at fault. While Republicans use delaying tactics to slow down the floor calendar, Democrats repeatedly try to avoid tough votes. It is no wonder Congress's approval ratings are at an all-time low. Instead of working to solve the major problems our country faces, we engage in partisan warfare for political gain.

The Senate confirmation process for executive branch nominees is a prime example of how our rules prevent this body from functioning as it was intended. This used to be a fairly straightforward process.

When I was a kid, my father served in the Congress and later as Secretary of the Interior under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Once I grew up and was elected to the Congress myself, I often talked with him about the differences between his era in Washington and mine.

One of my biggest frustrations was the Senate's inability to bring executive confirmations to an up-or-down vote. I told my dad, ``the President and Cabinet Secretaries don't have their team. How can they do the job the American people sent them here to do without a team to back them up?'' Do you know what he said to me? He said, ``Tom, I had virtually my whole team in place the first 2 weeks.'' Imagine today if the whole team for the Department of the Interior, or any other department, was confirmed in the first 2 weeks of the administration.

There have been many news articles about how the Senate has dragged its feet in confirming President Obama's team. A New York Times article from August 2009 stated that, ``Seven months into his presidency, fewer than half of his top appointees are in place advancing his agenda.''

A February 2010 Washington Post article found that ``46 of Obama's nominees have waited at least three months to be confirmed and nine have waited twice that long. . . . Obama's nominee to head the General Services Administration was confirmed only last week--by a 96-0 vote, no less--after a hold stalled her nomination for nine months.''

Perhaps what is most disturbing to me is that many nominees are held up purely because of their policy views, and not because they are unqualified. I believe that the president has a right to appoint people who share his policy views--it would be ridiculous to expect otherwise.

Unfortunately, many well-qualified nominees have been blocked because of their policy views, and not because of their qualifications.

A perfect example is Dawn Johnson, who was President Obama's nominee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Johnson was a respected law professor and former top assistant in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Clinton administration. But Republican's cited her strong pro-choice views as grounds for blocking her nomination. After more than a year of her nomination being stalled in the Senate, she decided that she had had enough and withdrew from consideration.

Yesterday, more than 6 months after she was nominated, the Senate confirmed Virginia Seitz to head the Office of Legal Counsel. Sadly, she is the first Senate-confirmed head of OLC since 2004. For 7 years, we have not confirmed a nominee to this position because of partisan battles over the nominees' policy views. The last Senate-confirmed nominee, Jack Goldsmith, recently said that, ``It's important that there be a Senate-confirmed person at the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, both because it helps secure the independence of the office when it's making legal judgments and because it helps give the office more authority, both within the Justice Department and throughout the government.'' Yet we let it go 7 years without confirming a nominee to lead the office.

Another recent example is the nomination of James Cole to be the Justice Department Deputy Attorney General. Cole first joined the department in 1979 as part of the Attorney General's Honors Program. He served there for 13 years--first as a trial attorney in the Criminal Division, and later as the Deputy Chief of the Division's Public Integrity Section, the office that handles investigation and prosecution of corruption cases against both Democratic and Republican elected and appointed officials at all levels of government.

Although Cole's record is exemplary, his nomination was blocked for over a year. Why? Because he believed it made sense to try some terrorism suspects in Federal courts, rather than military commissions. A view that I, and many legal scholars and constitutional experts, happen to share with Mr. Cole.

In May, 353 days after his selection, Democrats forced a cloture vote on Cole's nomination, but were unable to overcome the Republican filibuster. This was the first time in history that a Deputy Attorney General nominee was filibustered. Let's hope it's also the last.

After a few more weeks of negotiations, we were finally able to have an up or down vote yesterday on the Cole nomination, and he was confirmed 55-42. Because of the forest fires in my State, I unfortunately missed this vote, as did two of my Democratic colleagues. If we had all voted for Mr. Cole, he would have been confirmed overwhelmingly 58-42, with bipartisan support.

How does a nominee get stuck in the Senate confirmation process for over a year, only to be finally confirmed by a bipartisan majority? Simple--our confirmation process is broken.

I will mention one final example, although there are many more.

Just this month, Peter Diamond withdrew as President Obama's nominee to the Federal Reserve Board. Diamond's nomination was blocked because a small minority of senators questioned whether he was qualified and had enough experience in conducting monetary policy. I tend to believe that he was qualified, as he won the Nobel Prize in economics last year.

I give you all these examples because the bill we are considering today would not have affected these nominations in any way. While I appreciate the effort of the task force that produced this bill, it does nothing to prevent the abuse of the Senate rules in the confirmation process.

In order to have real change in the process, the Senate rules must be

amended. As such, I have filed an amendment that will restore the proper role of the Senate's advise and consent responsibility.

My amendment is very simple. It would make the cloture threshold on executive branch nominees a majority of Senators chosen and sworn--51 if all seats are filled. The result is exactly what our framers intended--if the president nominates someone, and a majority of the Senate approves, that person is confirmed. Our current rules lead to a much more perverse result. Now, if the president nominates someone and 59 Senators approve and 41 object, the nomination fails. How can we argue for this result?

My amendment only applies to executive branch nominees, so judicial nominees are still subject to a 60 vote cloture threshold. While I don't believe judicial nominees should be filibustered either, I know many of my colleagues are reluctant to give up the supermajority cloture requirement because judges are appointed for life.

I know some will ask me about what happens when we are in the minority and the president is a Republican--won't I want to be able to block an extreme nominee? The short answer is no. While I might want to block a nominee, I don't believe the Constitution gives me that right if a majority favors his or her confirmation.

If the American people elect a Republican president and the Republicans become the majority party in the Senate, I would expect some executive branch nominees that I disagree with on policy grounds. But I believe that we must afford the President a significant degree of deference to shape his Cabinet as he sees fit. If those nominees are qualified, I do not believe a minority of the Senate should be able to block them.

Many of my Republican colleagues have said the same thing in the past. When speaking on the floor about the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General, Senator Kyl said that, ``When someone is qualified and has the confidence of the President . . . unless there is some highly disqualifying factor brought to our attention--[we] should accede to the President's request for his nomination and confirm the individual.'' Senator Hatch, a highly regarded constitutional scholar and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in 2003:

The advice and consent clause [of the Constitution] is

clearly an up or down vote--a majority vote--on the floor of

the Senate. The Founding Fathers knew what a supermajority

vote was. . . . If they had wanted it to be a 60-vote margin

. . . they would have said so.

Senator Hatch also said on the floor in 2007:

Under the Constitution, the President has the primary

appointment authority. We check that authority, but we may

not hijack it. We may not use our role of advise and consent

to undermine the President's authority.

I hope that we can agree that our confirmation process is broken and that we need significant reforms to restore the democratic process in this body. Many of us have said as much when we are in the majority and our president's nominees are being held hostage by a small minority.

It's time for us to put partisanship aside and amend our rules so that the President, regardless of his or her party affiliation, can get a team in place and govern. I'm proud today to join once again with Senator Harkin and offer an amendment that will do just that. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. The Senate is broken and the only way we are going to fix it--to make it work once again for the American people--is through substantive reform of the rules.

I ask that the news articles I mentioned be printed in the Record.

The information follows:

[From the Washington Post, June 9, 2011]

Senate Legislation May Slow, But Quorums Continue

(By David A. Fahrenthold)

In the U.S. Senate, this is what nothing sounds like.

``Mr. Akaka.''

At 9:36 a.m. on Thursday, a clerk with a practiced monotone

read aloud the name of Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii). The

chamber was nearly deserted. The senator wasn't there. Not

that she was really looking for him.

Instead, the clerk was beginning one of the Capitol's most

arcane rituals: the slow-motion roll calls that the Senate

uses to bide time.

These procedures, called ``quorum calls,'' usually serve no

other purpose than to fill up empty minutes on the Senate

floor. They are so boring, so quiet that C-SPAN adds in

classical music: otherwise, viewers might think their TV was

broken.

This year--even as Washington lurches closer to a debt

crisis--the Senate has spent a historic amount of time

performing this time-killing ritual. Quorum calls have taken

up about a third of its time since January, according to C-

SPAN statistics: more than 17 eight-hour days' worth of dead

air.

On Thursday, the Senate was at it again. At least on

``Seinfeld,'' doing nothing came with a flunky bass line.

``It's not even gridlock. It's worse than that,'' said

Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University

who once ran for the Senate himself as a Democrat. He said

``gridlock'' implies that somebody was at least trying to get

legislation passed.

Instead, he said, this year ``they're not even trying to

get something done.''

To an outsider, a quorum call looks like a serious--if

dull--piece of congressional business. A clerk reads out

senators' names slowly, sometimes waiting 10 minutes or more

between them.

But it's usually a sham. The senators aren't coming. Nobody

expects them to. The ritual is a reaction to what the chamber

has become: a very fancy place that senators, often, are too

busy to visit.

This is what happened: Decades ago, senators didn't have

offices. They spent their days at their desks on the Senate

floor. So clerks really needed to call the roll to see if a

majority was ready for business.

Now, senators spend much of their time in committee rooms,

offices and elsewhere. If no big vote is on the horizon,

often nothing at all is happening on the Senate floor.

But Senate rules don't allow for nothing to happen. That

would require a formal adjournment, which would mean lots of

time-consuming parliamentary rigamarole.

Instead, the last senator to speak asks clerks to fill the

time by calling the roll.

``It's just a matter of keeping the store lights on when

the customers aren't there,'' said Donald A. Ritchie the

Senate's official historian. The procedures are much less

common in the House, where the rules allow for a pause in

activity without a formal adjournment.

On Thursday morning, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) finished

talking about an airman who was killed in Afghanistan. He

looked around, realized he was alone, and suggested a quorum

call. ``Mr. Akaka,'' the clerk intoned.

Hatch left the floor. Minutes passed. It was so quiet that,

when a page carried out a glass of water, the clink of the

ice cubes could be heard up in the gallery. Tourists watched

blank-faced. Ten minutes passed. Some of the visitors got up

to leave.

After 12 minutes, Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) showed up.

``I ask that the proceedings of the quorum be dispensed

with,'' he said. That's how quorum calls usually end: The

next senator who wants to speak asks for a halt.

After Warner gave a brief speech on the value of federal

workers, it happened again. ``Mr. Akaka,'' the clerk said.

Twenty-one minutes of silence.

At a deli in the Senate's basement, it was clear this was

wearing on people. One Capitol employee asked another: Where

are you working today? ``Senate chamber,'' his buddy replied.

``Shoot myself in the head.''

These sham roll calls have been a feature of Senate debate

for decades, but this year has been special: According to C-

SPAN, the Senate has spent more than 32 percent of its time

in quorum calls. That's more than in any comparable period

dating to 1997.

The main reason seems to be the bare-bones agenda pursued

by the Senate's Democratic leaders: There have been just 87

roll-call votes so far, compared with 205 in the same period

during 2009. Senate Democrats have not even proposed an

official budget; the strategy appears to be to shield

vulnerable incumbents from controversial votes on spending.

``Why are we here?'' asked Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a

critic of the large number of quorum calls this year. ``The

Senate is not operating the way it was designed, because

politicians don't want to be on record.''

Democrats, on the other hand, say they haven't brought up

much legislation because they think Republicans will just

block it.

``You always hope it'll get better,'' said Jon Summers, a

spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

It might. There is an upcoming deadline to lift the

national debt ceiling, and that could produce major

legislation later this summer.

But not yet. This year, in fact, C-SPAN worries that its

library of classical background music has been over-used. It

is trying to expand its options, within a set of strict

conditions: The music must be ``calm and benign.'' No cannon-

booming ``1812 Overture.'' No funeral marches.

And it must not imply any comment on the nothingness

happening onscreen. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call

recently suggested Lady Gaga's ``Bad Romance.'' Non-starter.

C-SPAN has also started using a graphic showing tweets from

members of Congress. It's a signal that lawmakers are doing

something. Just not here.

Mr. President, if Joe Stell had only one career, he would still be worthy of our admiration.

If he had been only a hard-working and talented New Mexico educator who was loved by his students, he would deserve our respect. If he had only been a New Mexico State legislator who was admired by his colleagues and his constituents, he would deserve our thanks. And if he had been only a land and water steward, revered by the many ranchers he mentored on land management practices, he would deserve our admiration. Or had he been only a tireless advocate for restoring New Mexico grasslands and advancing partnerships to restore the land, he would deserve our gratitude.

But Joe Stell was all of these things: A no-nonsense public servant who asked tough questions, restored the landscape of New Mexico and changed the way government agencies and ranching communities work together to improve the land.

Former Representative Stell retired from the New Mexico Legislature after serving 20 years and being recognized as the preeminent legislative expert on water issues in New Mexico. Then-Governor Richardson referred to him as ``Mr. Water.'' In his ``retirement,'' he now runs a cattle ranch in Carlsbad, NM. It is on this ranch and the surrounding areas of southeastern New Mexico that he took part in Restore New Mexico, reseeding grasslands, bringing back its riparian areas and wildlife species and their habitats as part of the Healthy Lands Initiative.

Joe Stell has spent his life dedicated to public service, education, and land and water stewardship. He is proactive and constant in his efforts to improve rangelands; to communicate and coordinate between agencies and individuals and to leave the land in better shape than when he first came to it. For this lifetime of work, Joe Stell has been the recipient of various prestigious awards and honors, and today back in New Mexico he will be awarded the Bureau of Land Management's Rangeland Stewardship Award.

On behalf of the people of New Mexico, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for Joe Stell's statesmanship and dedication to our State. Joe Stell's conservation work will always remind us that a commitment to the land and environment is powerful. For his more than 60 years of dedicated work in the public interest, I wish to honor Joe Stell.

Mr. President, last fall I led a discussion with NM Veterans Secretary John Garcia on post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD and other issues facing our veterans. We held our discussion near Silver City, New Mexico, at the historic Fort Bayard medical facility. This was an outstanding chance to hear firsthand from veterans about the medical problems they were facing.

During this meeting, I found out that one of the biggest challenges that many veterans in southern New Mexico face is finding nearby treatment for PTSD and traumatic brain injury which are called the signature wounds of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A bit of background for those who may not be familiar with my home State. Southern New Mexico is home to White Sands Missile Range, Holloman Air Force Base, and most of Fort. Bliss. It is a region filled with active duty personnel, as well as many veterans who choose to stay in New Mexico and the El Paso region after finishing their active duty service. And as more and more veterans return from Afghanistan and Iraq suffering from PTSD and traumatic brain injury, many need the services of polytrauma centers--which specialize in treating injuries like PTSD and TBI.

Unfortunately, the closest polytrauma centers to southern New Mexico are hundreds of miles away.

That is why, after hearing the stories of veterans who attended our Fort Bayard meeting, I began working on legislation to help improve the ability for them to access care in the region.

With this legislation we hope to address that issue by requiring the Veterans Administration to submit to Congress a study on the feasibility of building a polytrauma center in the region. And we want them to consider Fort Bayard specifically as a location for that new polytrauma center.

The facilities at Fort Bayard should not be wasted and could be put to good use by the Veterans Administration for a polytrauma center for the southern New Mexico/El Paso region. This plan would be a win-win for the region--it would provide veterans with much-needed, convenient access to a quality polytrauma center through the innovative use of a facility that is currently being underutilized.

Veterans who have risked their lives for our country deserve convenient access to the best of care when they return home. Because as long as America faces threats and values freedom, we will need men and women willing to protect us. And as long as Americans serve in uniform, we have a sacred responsibility to support them.

Mr. President, last fall I led a discussion with NM Veterans Secretary John Garcia on post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD and other issues facing our veterans. We held our discussion near Silver City, New Mexico, at the historic Fort Bayard medical facility. This was an outstanding chance to hear firsthand from veterans about the medical problems they were facing.

During this meeting, I found out that one of the biggest challenges that many veterans in southern New Mexico face is finding nearby treatment for PTSD and traumatic brain injury which are called the signature wounds of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A bit of background for those who may not be familiar with my home State. Southern New Mexico is home to White Sands Missile Range, Holloman Air Force Base, and most of Fort. Bliss. It is a region filled with active duty personnel, as well as many veterans who choose to stay in New Mexico and the El Paso region after finishing their active duty service. And as more and more veterans return from Afghanistan and Iraq suffering from PTSD and traumatic brain injury, many need the services of polytrauma centers--which specialize in treating injuries like PTSD and TBI.

Unfortunately, the closest polytrauma centers to southern New Mexico are hundreds of miles away.

That is why, after hearing the stories of veterans who attended our Fort Bayard meeting, I began working on legislation to help improve the ability for them to access care in the region.

With this legislation we hope to address that issue by requiring the Veterans Administration to submit to Congress a study on the feasibility of building a polytrauma center in the region. And we want them to consider Fort Bayard specifically as a location for that new polytrauma center.

The facilities at Fort Bayard should not be wasted and could be put to good use by the Veterans Administration for a polytrauma center for the southern New Mexico/El Paso region. This plan would be a win-win for the region--it would provide veterans with much-needed, convenient access to a quality polytrauma center through the innovative use of a facility that is currently being underutilized.

Veterans who have risked their lives for our country deserve convenient access to the best of care when they return home. Because as long as America faces threats and values freedom, we will need men and women willing to protect us. And as long as Americans serve in uniform, we have a sacred responsibility to support them.

Madam President, I rise today because I believe the United States is headed down a slippery path toward an escalation of military force in Libya. I also believe if the U.S. military is to be involved in such an escalation, then the Congress must exercise its constitutional authority and approve or disapprove the President's proposal.

I supported President Obama's initial decision to engage in a limited military operation to prevent an imminent humanitarian catastrophe. President Obama and the international community were clear that targeting of civilians by Muammar Qadhafi would not be tolerated. It has been over 60 days since the President notified the Congress that he intended to use military force in Libya. We are adrift. We are without direction. We are in danger of fighting an expanded war, a war that was originally justified as a limited military operation, a no-fly zone, to prevent civilian casualties and imminent catastrophe. This war has now been slowly expanded for one that is pushing for regime change.

We have been down this path before. Let's not go there. In Libya we are now receiving reports that helicopter gunships are being used to target ground forces--something that was never originally intended under the premise of a no-fly zone. In fact, it seems that the no-fly zone has slowly evolved into what some have called a no-drive zone. Congress has not approved this action.

I do not believe the U.N. Security Council approved such an action in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.

We also hear it is now the policy to support regime change and that there are some plans to arm rebel groups. Some outside groups and Members of Congress are clamoring to escalate the war in Libya. They believe air power will never dislodge Muammar Qadhafi and his family. The Congress has not approved the use of military force to achieve regime change. Flooding the region with small arms is also being proposed. This would be a major mistake and could lead to a host of unintended consequences.

We do not know enough about the rebels fighting Qadhafi, but we do know there are plenty of mercenaries, as well as members of al-Qaida, waiting to exploit any chaos. If arms are flooded into the region, there is no guarantee they will be able to account for those arms. In my opinion, there is a high likelihood those arms could end up in the hands of some very unsavory and dangerous individuals.

The bottom line is this: Congress has not had the opportunity to weigh in. Like my colleagues, I deplore Muammar Qadhafi. I support a democratic transition and his departure from power, but the military goals should be defined and limited as a matter of policy. It should not include regime change. This would be a dangerous escalation.

As many of you know, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was planning a markup for last Thursday of S. Res. 194, titled ``Expressing the Sense of the Senate on the United States Military Operations in Libya.'' I had strong concerns about the resolution we were scheduled to consider. A sense of the Senate is clearly not an authorization for use of military force. A sense of the Senate does not meet the requirements of the War Powers Act. And a sense of the Senate falls short of meeting our constitutional obligation to declare war.

I drafted an amendment to S. Res. 194. I ask unanimous consent the text of this amendment be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

My amendment stated:

The President is not authorized to deploy ground forces,

including special operations forces, in pursuance of any

goals related to United States policy in Libya, unless

expressly authorized by Congress or as determined necessary

by the President to protect a member of the United States

Armed Forces currently deployed in the region.

I believe any authorization of military force should contain similar language. I understand Senator Webb and Senator Corker have introduced a resolution with these prohibitions and exceptions to protect our troops and I support these efforts to limit the mission in Libya. It is important that we do not escalate military actions in Libya. An escalation would be a dangerous course, and it would be costly to the region and our country.

While the markup has been postponed, it is my understanding that Senator Kerry and others are working on language that would fulfill our constitutional obligations and comply with the War Powers Act. I look forward to consideration of a resolution of this kind in the Foreign Relations Committee and strongly believe it should include language similar to the amendment I was going to offer.

I have been proud to serve in the Congress for more than a decade. We have fought two lengthy wars during this period of time. I have seen the impact on our military, on their families, on our national deficit. Before the United States escalates its involvement in another overseas conflict, Congress must weigh in. It is our constitutional duty.

Exhibit 1

Draft Amendment to S. Res. 194

That the President is not authorized to deploy ground

forces, including special operations forces, in pursuance of

any goals related to United States policy in Libya, unless

expressly authorized by Congress or as determined necessary

by the President to protect a member of the United States

Armed Forces currently deployed in the region.

I will be happy to yield.

I thank the Senator for his statement. I believe with all of us working together--our chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Cardin, and others, as well as the Presiding Officer, who is also on the Foreign Relations Committee with us--we can come to a resolution which complies with what the President has stated.

The President says he has no intention of sending ground forces into Libya. But it is important at this point in time, as the Senator from Illinois pointed out and as the Constitution mandates, that we step in and express the will of the American people on this issue. That is the whole purpose of what I am on the floor for today, and I look forward to working very closely with the Senator from Illinois.

With that, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today's vote to extend expiring provisions of the so-called PATRIOT Act is not the first time Congress has extended the sunset provisions, nor will it be the last. In 2006, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act was passed and, among other things, extended until December 2009 the three provisions we are discussing today. When those provisions were set to expire, a 3-month extension was included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Three months later, Congress passed a 1-year extension until February 2011. As that deadline loomed, and without sufficient time to have a real debate, we passed the extension that expires at midnight tonight.

Immediately after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, it may have been understandable that our emotions made it unlikely that we would have a rationale and deliberative debate about the PATRIOT Act. But at the time, as I voted against the bill, I said on the House floor that ``the saving grace here is that the sunset provision forces us to come back and to look at these issues again when heads are cooler and when we are not in the heat of battle.''

But that hasn't happened. Each time a sunset date nears, we hear a lot of highly charged rhetoric from Members in both parties and in both Chambers of Congress about how devastating it will be to our national security if we let the PATRIOT Act expire. I find this to be deeply disturbing because it demonstrates that 10 years after the attacks on 9/11 we are still using fear to prevent an open and honest debate.

Let's put this rhetoric aside and discuss the facts. First, the PATRIOT Act is not about to expire. Three provisions of the law are set to expire, but the vast majority of the authorities contained in the law will remain unchanged.

Two of the expiring provisions were enacted as part of the PATRIOT Act. Section 206 of the act amended FISA to permit multipoint, or ``roving,'' wiretaps. Section 215 enlarged the scope of materials that could be sought under FISA to include ``any tangible thing.'' It also lowered the standard required before a court order may be issued to compel their production. The third provision was enacted in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, IRTPA. This provision changed the rules regarding the types of individuals who may be targets of FISA-authorized searches. Also known as the ``lone wolf'' provision, it permits surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in international terrorism without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist organization.

Let's also be clear about what would happen if these provisions did expire. The two provisions from the PATRIOT Act that amended FISA authorities would read as they did before the PATRIOT Act was passed in 2001. That means they would not be revoked completely but instead would be more limited in scope. And what would happen if the ``lone wolf'' provision expired? Not much. In the 7 years since its enactment, it is never been used.

Even if the provisions expire, they contain exceptions for ongoing investigations, and the government can continue to use those provisions beyond the sunset date. This is what a recent CRS report says about this:

A grandfather clause applies to each of the three

provisions. The grandfather clauses authorize the continued

effect of the amendments with respect to investigations that

began, or potential offenses that took place, before the

provision's sunset date. Thus, for example, if a non-U.S.

person were engaged in international terrorism before the

sunset date of May 27, 2011, he would still be considered a

``lone wolf'' for FISA court orders sought after the

provision has expired. Similarly, if an individual is engaged

in international terrorism before that date, he may be the

target of a roving wiretap under FISA even after authority

for new roving wiretaps has expired.

Those are pretty broad exceptions, and I am fairly confident that our ability to protect the Nation would continue even if the three provisions expire. So let's put the hyperbole aside and not stoke irrational fears for political expediency.

I am very disappointed that we couldn't have a candid debate and an opportunity to vote on several amendments. With a decade of hindsight, more voices from very different places on the political spectrum agree that the entire law bears scrutiny and debate. We should no longer neglect our duty to review the full scope of a law with such serious constitutional challenges before rushing to reauthorize it, again.

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

Madam President, I know Senator Blumenthal is coming to speak and Senator Kerry ended a little bit early. I wish to get up for a couple minutes now, and when Senator Blumenthal comes in I will yield to him because he has some time reserved.

I wish to talk this morning a little bit about the procedure and what we have gone through, in terms of the PATRIOT Act.

I am very discouraged to see the path we are headed down in terms of the PATRIOT Act. I was in the Congress, as the Presiding Officer knows, when we voted almost 10 years ago on the PATRIOT Act. It was a sad occasion then because it was right after 9/11 and that horrible tragedy had happened to our country. But we rushed, in a very big way, to move forward with a piece of legislation, the so-called PATRIOT Act. That act ended up being something I think many of us regret.

I wish to read a short passage from the Washington Post at the time, which I think showed the haste in which we acted, where we infringed on our constitutional rights, and I think the Post says it all. They noted:

Members of both parties complained they had no idea what

they were voting on, were fearful that aspects of the . . .

bill went too far--yet voted for it anyway.

I can tell you that, at the time, that is the way it was. We were on the floor, we had the vote, and nobody knew what was in the bill. I remember one Congressman waiving a copy of the bill, saying there is only one copy on the floor and it is hot off the Xerox machine. So it is unfortunate we moved so quickly, with so much haste.

Almost 10 years later, we have not had the debate we need to have on this piece of legislation. The greatest deliberative body has not weighed in with amendments. We have not moved forward in a serious way to try to tackle this piece of legislation that is so important to our country, important to our freedom, and important to our liberty.

What are the problems we should be dealing with? Just very quickly--I know my colleague, Senator Blumenthal, is here, so I will quickly move on. But two things have happened that indicate we have some serious problems with the PATRIOT Act. No. 1, in March of 2007, the inspector general of the Department of Justice, in a report concluded that ``the FBI engaged in serious misuse of national security letter authority.'' The report also said that ``in many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.''

So there we have an inspector general telling us that the executive branch, with the piece of legislation, moved way beyond where they should. That is something we should take a hard look at. I have an amendment, and I know others do, on that.

There have also been courts that have looked at parts of the PATRIOT Act and found that act to be unconstitutional. It is incumbent upon us, when we have a ruling such as that, to look at it and offer amendments and try to make changes.

I harken back to what I remember reflecting on, on that day when we passed the act. Benjamin Franklin--talking about our precious freedom and liberty--said this, and I will paraphrase. He said something along these lines: Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. So that is where we are today.

The so-called PATRIOT Act was enacted nearly a decade ago. Hastily passed by a Congress left reeling in the wake of a devastating terrorist attack on our Nation. Its supporters described it as a way to protect our Nation from similar attacks in the future. But this far- reaching piece of legislation went much farther than that. The PATRIOT Act's most enduring legacy is this: It gave the Federal Government the power to undermine the constitutional right to privacy of law-abiding citizens.

I was a Member of the House of Representatives at the time. One of only 66 Members to vote against passing the PATRIOT Act. It was an unpopular vote at the time. But when the details of the new law were examined, its breaches on our civil liberties became clearer. And the truth came out. As I have said, the Washington Post noted, ``members of both parties complained they had no idea what they were voting on, were fearful that aspects of the . . . bill went too far--yet voted for it anyway.''

I also voted against the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act in 2006, as well as the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. In February, I once again opposed the extension of three controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act: roving wiretaps . . . government access to ``any tangible items'' such as library and business records . . . and the surveillance of targets who are not connected to an identified terrorist group.

Back in 2001, I said on the House floor that I was ``unable to support this bill because it does not strike the right balance between protecting our liberties and providing for the security of our citizens.''

I went on to explain that ``the saving grace here is that the sunset provision forces us to come back and to look at these issues again when heads are cooler and when we are not in the heat of battle.''

And that is exactly what we should do. To govern in a post-9/11 world, we have to strike a delicate balance: We must prevent the terrorist actions of some, without infringing on the constitutional guarantees of the vast many. We are failing to strike that balance today by forcing reauthorizations of the PATRIOT Act without scrutinizing the long-term ramifications of the law.

Voting for the PATRIOT Act in the shadow of the 9/11 attacks was justifiable for many; that horrific day created an unparalleled sense of urgency. Today, we are once again up against a sense of urgency to renew the controversial provisions of the law set to expire this week.

But it's no longer due to a recent attack. Instead, the urgency has been created by the false argument that our Nation will be more vulnerable to attack if we dare to let the provisions expire.

Let's be honest in this debate--not act hastily out of false fears. Even if the provisions expire, the sunsets contain an exception for ongoing investigations. And the government can continue to use those provisions beyond this week.

Perhaps the real fear is that the time it would take for real debate might postpone our Memorial Day recess. We were promised a real debate on this reauthorization, and we should have it!

With a decade of hindsight, more voices from very different places on the political spectrum agree--the entire law bears scrutiny and debate. We can no longer neglect our duty. It is our responsibility to review the full scope of a law with such serious constitutional challenges before rushing to reauthorize it, again.

I have filed two amendments that I hope the Senate will consider and vote on.

The first is very simple. It extends the expiring provisions until September so that we can have a real, substantive debate and an open amendment process. This is what we thought the 3-month extension passed in February was intended to do, but adequate floor time was never scheduled and we have been extremely limited in our ability to offer amendments.

This is by no means an ideal solution. In fact, I voted against the short-term extension in February. But if our options are an extension until September and an extension until 2015, I am willing to accept the lesser of two evils. I thank Senator Merkley for cosponsoring this amendment.

The second amendment I have filed would reinstate a sunset provision for national security letters. This provision was in Senator Leahy's bill that was reported out of his committee and is in his amendment, but I feel strongly that it should also be considered as a stand-alone because of the importance of this issue.

National security letters do not require a court order. They are a form of administrative subpoena issued by FBI agents and other officials. A March 2007 report by the Department of Justice inspector general ``concluded that the FBI engaged in serious misuse of NSL authority.''

It also said that ``in many instances, the FBI's misuse of national security letters violated NSL statutes, Attorney General guidelines, or the FBI's own internal policies.''

I believe that there must be a sunset provision for NSLs to ensure that Congress periodically reevaluates this

power and is certain that it is not being abused.

I have also signed on as a cosponsor to several of my colleagues' amendments. Let me just comment briefly about some of these.

In addition to my NSL amendment, I cosponsored Senator Paul's amendment that prohibits any officer or employee of the United States from issuing an NSL unless a FISA court judge finds that probable cause exists to issue the NSL. This would bring NSLs into compliance with the plain text of fourth amendment.

I am pleased to join Senators Mark Udall and Paul on an amendment that would eliminate the possibility of ``John Doe'' roving wiretaps that identify neither the person nor the phone to be wiretapped. This would protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance and was part of the JUSTICE Act that I cosponsored in the last Congress.

I have also cosponsored Mark Udall's amendment that would direct the attorney general to only delegate the authority for approving ``lone wolf'' surveillance to the deputy attorney general. It would also require the attorney general to provide notice to Congress of applications for ``lone wolf'' surveillance.

Finally, with Senator Sanders, I have cosponsored an amendment that exempts libraries and bookstores from section 215 orders and NSLs. A similar amendment passed the House 287-238 in the 2005 PATRIOT Act debate, but was later dropped in conference.

The ACLU, the American Booksellers Association, the American Library Association, and the Campaign for Reader Privacy all support this amendment.

All of these amendments are designed to protect the civil liberties of all Americans and each deserves a full debate on the floor and an up-or-down vote by the Members of this body. Failing to do so is once again failing to provide the adequate time and consideration of this far-reaching legislation.

As a former Federal prosecutor and New Mexico's attorney general, I am familiar with the needs of law enforcement to pursue suspects and a strong supporter of law enforcement. But I also believe that our Constitution must be guarded against encroachment, even in the name of security.

I yield the floor.