get that difficult balance between security and liberty rights. the government efforts in the past have very often got this about what's wrong. this week the court ruling on compensation for those given control, surely is now put another nail in the coffin of his failed system. as the former home secretary said, the right honorable, they have holes all through them. will the prime minister now accept the control don't work? will he agree not to renew them when they expired in march and will he agree to focus his attentions instead, his intentions instead on ways of making it easier to prosecute terrorist suspect in our courts? . . 

>> extremism within its borders, expose those people with extremist radical features who are trying to pervert islam and to make sure that we bring into alliance with us the people of yemen who have other interests that need to be met but cannot and should not look to al qaeda as for the solution to their grievances. of course, that is the same issue in somalia as well. i do assure that our policy in somalia and in yemen as it is in

pakistan is to back those elements standing firm against al qaeda and against those using islam on the base of which they preach jihad against the rest of the world. as far as the measures we are taking here i do emphasize to them that the maximum concern is taken to deal with the civil liberties issues that arise. and so in the installation of the security machines at airports and making sure that we have security checks properly done, there will be conduct designed to protect individuals >> david plunkett. >> my friend will be aware that the comptroller to which the leader referred was introduced by my successor falling in december in 2004 overturning section four of the

anti-terrorism sovereignty security act. given the key issues about disclosure and the failure of the judiciary to respond to the consultation and early 2004, alternatives which would allow the court system to deal with that with sufficient privacy to protect sources. with my right honorable friend consider the chief court with the home and justice secretaries to ask the judiciary if they have proposals that would help us to develop an alternative rather than simply striking down the alternatives we put together in this house. >> no one knows more about this than my right honorable friend who is well versed in debates that took place at the time and when he was home secretary and we had to take very, very difficult positions to deal with the terrorist threat in our country. i applaud him for the work he is

done. he is right that any further decisions have to be based on maximum consultation and discussion with those people whose advisory, and the home secretary and justice secretary will, of course. >> put it to the prime minister that nothing more fuels international terrorism than the stationing of foreign troops in islamic countries. >> i have to disagree with him. the only way that afghanistan was rid of the taliban and al qaeda was by the action that was taken by the u.s., the u.k., and other allied forces. but for that the taliban would still be in power in afghanistan and al qaeda would still have the license to run within afghanistan and to plan attacks on britain and other countries from there. we took the action. as part of a 43-nation coalition. it was and still is supported by

the united nations. one of the widest and alliances that has been ever formed. the reason is we must prevent al qaeda from bidding spacing countries like afghanistan to trendy whole world. >> mr. speaker, i have very much welcome the lead at the prime minister has shown in this. his statement is concise and comprehensive and resolute. can i also encourage him to stick to an evidence based approach because nothing would be lost in taking action which is not justified by our existing law and would ultimately give a propaganda coup to those that we seek to come and aimed at terrorism. and will he continue to seak consensus that only throughout this house, but throughout the country and make sure there is a communication and explanations strategy for the public who will be inconvenienced by these measures, but will ultimately be protected by then? >> i think my right honorable

friend is absolutely right. again, he has done so much for the problems that terrorism can bring and the security measures necessary to deal with those. he, like me, is aware that you need to build public confidence in what is being done and that the introduction of the checking at airports has got to be explained to the public and the civil liberties dealt with so that people feel satisfied this is being done in their interest and in the security interest of the country. as far as the prescription of organizations is concerned, i do think it is easy to call for the prescription of one organization or another. the most difficult thing is to make sure you have a case that can stand up in court. that is why we are careful about doors organizations that we described. if we were to describe an organization that would win a case in court against us of course that would be a propaganda victory for them. we must be sure of the evidence we have before we make these

decisions. it was by intricate examination of the work of islam in the u.k. that we came to the conclusion it should be prescribed. >> should the prime minister admit the more sophisticated the threat the more sophisticated the means necessary to deal with it and then turn the greater resources required in order to be able to do so. since you are about to embark on a period of severe expenditure, the intelligence agencies will have the resources in order to enable them to fulfill their primary responsibility, of which is the protection of burgesses since. >> because we have troubled the resources that that are availao the intelligence communities system doesn't one and doubled the a number of stock available to them. therefore the platform that the investment has already been made and is being made and the development of the service, but technology and expertise they have ended their staffing.

i believe that that the decisions we made in 2001 until now to increase the security service investment have been some of the most important and, of course, expensive decisions that we have made, but they have been the right decisions. the security service is built on a very strong foundation. >> my right honorable friend, a commitment to continue development of the investment in the borders system which is so important, not only in enabling us to count people, but also to track those who may pose a risk. i think he may be premature in believing that the right honorable gentlemen leading the opposition has withdrawn his concern for oppositions to the border scheme regardless of the fluctuation position of members opposite to the border system can he reassure us that he will maintain a commitment to collecting the information and investing in the technology necessary to protect us from the

international threats of terrorism? >> i am very grateful to her for pointing out that this is an important part of the protection of british citizens and to be able to have, prior to travel, a check that is available to be done as a result of an system in which we have invested more than 1 billion pounds is a very important element. appraiser work in moving forward with that system when she was home secretary and the action she took to counter terrorism when she was in that job. i also, to say, that sometimes i think they do not want to understand the measures we are already taking. we have a committee on national security in place. the leader of the opposition sometimes gives the impression it doesn't include the chiefs of our security agencies, the chief of defence staff, all those people who are charged with this in the security issues of our

country and wants it creates a new committee. these are people already on the security. we set up a national secretaries. we have a national security forum which gives us advice from experts around the world about our security, and we have extreme conflicts stabilization experts and all the things that that suggested should be done are already actually being done. >> been wallace. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime mnister will though the first rst act by al qaeda tk place using a cavity bomb. a bomb inserted inside a human body. there is no technology available to detect that threat. we used to go to the defense research budget to keep one step ahead of terrorism. under his watch it has been cut 22%. while i recognize the government has spent money on personnel and structures with the review? without it we would be able to

solve the problem. >> that science expenditure has doubled over the last ten years. and the security has asked lord west to work with them on new measures to detect the things exactly he is talking about. therefore investments have gone in. i would ask him to the get the overall picture of science investment in this country in the invitation by northwest and companies to be developing new technology. in fact, it is smith industries, one of the british companies. it is a british company, and i wish he would keep talking britain bad. >> can i a welcome the prime minister's statement and thank him for agreeing to meet your party yemen group. president obama following the detroit incident said that there had been a systemic failure and security apparatus in the net to states.

in the evidence that is currently being given to the select committee a number of witnesses talk about information being retained in home departments, for example, the department of transport and others, rather than being sent to the home office. does he not agree that the issue of coordination is vital and that is strengthening the opposite created by the right honorable member. but he elected can look again as idea? there is a need to coordinate on a political level as well as the practical operational level through the oset. >> the national security committee involves all the major ministers and government as well as the chief of the defence staff, heads of the security agencies, and all those who are charged with the security and protection of the country. as far as coordination between the different agencies, he's absolutely right about the innovations by my right honorable friend, the member.

but at the same time we are moving forward. the cabinet secretary is reporting on intelligence coordination. our three intelligence agencies are setting up joint teams to address the potential threats upstream. this is where i think we can make major advances to prevent individuals who are worried about ever reaching our shores. we continue to look at better ways to use intelligence. >> mr. speaker, a major promoter of global terrorism yet a prisoner swap to free peter moore continued. the timing of the release coincided with a senior figure in the group which kidnapped mr. moore who are backed by iran. will the prime minister confirm that mr. moore was not part of a prisoner swap and that the government services were not involved? >> i can confirm what the

foreign secretary said about the release of mr. peter moore, that it was done in the way that he described without any arrangement with the iranian government. >> aviation security combining specific measures at airports and international intelligence, could the prime minister tell us what specific steps to be taken to strengthen the weak spots globally in the nation to promote security and intelligence and the actions he is taking about the internet to hate such as massive websites preaching hatred to children at this very moment. >> a little cheeky to ask two questions. >> i'll the second issue the home office.

on the question of airport security, and i know that she is the chairman of the council select, it is very important to recognize that the measures we take will work best if they are accompanied by measures by the companies. that is why we are offering other countries that need help to debate the british security in airports our help and our training of staff as well as advice and technology. >> it is now three years since the government signed the e borders contract. still does not allow less to automatically allow boarding to passengers deemed a security risk. why are we still waiting for authority to carry function in e border program when the government originally promised this would be in place by october 2008? >> mr. speaker, i read out the number of people who have been caught coming through our borders as a result of the success of e borders system.

he cannot claim it is a failure when large numbers of people have been prevented from entering this country and detected as a result of what it is doing. that said that the e border system would be completed by the end of 2010, and that is exactly where we are. >> mr. speaker, my right honorable friend said about helping to achieve stability in yemen, welcomed by yemen in my constituency long concerned about the situation in their own country. on somalia we all want to see the interim transitional government succeed in bringing stability, but they don't yet even control mogadishu. would he also continues the u.k.'s engagement with the governments of somalia in the north which for nearly 20 years has beacon of stability and democracy within the hope of horn of africa and continue that success. >> i appreciate what he is saying. he speaks with a great deal of knowledge of what has happened in africa over the years.

we will work with all governments against the terrorist threat. the real danger is the al qaeda confined areas where there is instability. they exploit that, and then, of course, cause chaos within the region around them. we are determined to work with like-minded governments. we have got to expose extremism and expose the backers. >> as someone with an airport in the heart of the constituency i welcome the announcement, but does the share my concern and is he shocked to hear that even at the airports announced this week that they are having security and will he the contact ee and the aviation and will he find

out what is going on? >> the important thing is that the airports take seriously. every airport in this country will be responding. i believe that if they're done properly the inconvenience to passengers can be minimized, and i believe the new measures, the new technology being introduced could actually, over time, make the transfer of passengers not less faster, but make it happened with more speed. that is a matter for to be worked out over the next few months. i'll obviously look at what he says. >> is the prime minister aware that a preacher of hate and who has boasted on the bbc of his support for suicide has been invited to speak on the university of birmingham campus. the matter of freedom of expression. does the prime minister agree that freedom of expression is

vital is not the same as providing a platform for hate. we have to shut down these incubators of hate against our values against the jewish people. >> i think he raises a very important issue about how our universities will respond overtime to what is an attempt by some people to use them as a breeding ground for extremist activity. we have always got to get right the balance between academic freedom, which is at the heart of what universities are about, and the maintenance of security in our country. i know that most vice-chancellor is going to play through. >> on e borders the home secretary had some impressive elements in their reports injected a fairly great amount of problems. has the prime minister perceived how this is coming to be overcome and if not is there any point at all in closing the front door and leaving the back

door open? >> my right honorable friend who deals the these issues, reckon that the court who deals with the problems that they have raised as a result of the operation of the system. these problems are perfectly capable of being worked out. >> could i welcome what my right honorable had to say, particularly about the importance of sharing intelligence with our close allies. does he have any concern that the unwillingness of our own courts to protect the secrets of our close allies might have an affect on their willingness to continue to cooperate on the high level that they have in the past? >> my right honorable friend speaks with some knowledge of these issues. members of the committee on these very matters, of course, something that is very much valued on the house. of course these are issues that we have got to be very concerned

about. >> acknowledging the serious steps against the united kingdom from international terrorists and any action that is to be taken against them is welcome. the prime minister is also aware of the serious step that continues within the united kingdom , and i speak in reference to young police officer attempted murder in my constituency, peter hoffman, a very courageous and police officer. can the prime minister assure that the government will do everything within the united kingdom to hunt down those irresponsible for this attack as well as taking action on international terrorists? >> yes, i can give him that absolute assurance. terrorism and violence cannot be justified under any circumstances. i followed the tragic case. i hope that the officer is now able to recover. i know he has had huge difficulties as a result of the

injuries sustained. in no circumstances can extremist actions of violence never be justified. >> the overwhelming majority of muslims in britain are opposed to terrorism. they do not import to engage muslim organizations and individuals in combat of extremism, particularly as has been said already at universities, prisons, where the hate merchants are doing their best to spread their notorious poison, anti-semitism, and racism generally. >> but he is absolutely right. the heart of everything we do is to prevent the radicalization of young people by organizations that wish to provide a perverted view of the islamic religion and wish to exploit that to engage people to violence and terrorist acts. i keep saying that the way that we will do that is by exposing the extremists. it is important that people

stand up against the extremism and wherever it is being practiced. we must also back those reporting in moderate voices and give them the support that they need to be able to show young people the ways of al qaeda and other organizations are the ways of violence and completely unacceptable. >> mr. speaker, given that abdulmutallab on the seventh of december what practical support and advice and the government give to airports and those in regional airports? >> my understanding is that we are giving advice to these reports airports at the moment. we are in touch with some of the airports including the one that he has mentioned. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister in his answers has recognized the dangers of the propaganda agenda

of terrorists. in a statement he also referred to the intensified cooperation with police and other agencies and other countries. given that some of those countries will themselves have dubious regimes and those agencies will have questionable reputations, how can he ensure that the character of that will not become a propaganda place. >> we are very careful in what we do, and it is very important that we support legitimate governments. it is very important work with those elements that wish to discourage extremas and at all times, and it is very important we build a coalition of countries that are prepared to take on al qaeda and terrorist activity. i think the lesson of the afghanistan campaign is that 43 countries were prepared to come together to get rid of the taliban and al qaeda from afghanistan. the lesson of that and the conference in the unit next week is the people prepared to come

together to support countries taking action against terrorism. >> it is important that the maximum number of passengers can be processed. will he therefore have a look at the system already in place at manchester airport rare when a passenger takes a scanner they are diverted into a separate channel for body search allowing other passengers to proceed without delay? >> at think it has been piloted in manchester and we are looking at it very carefully. the transport minister is sitting next to me and he says this is one of the areas where further research is being done. >> last week the european court ruled against the section 44 part of stop and search as applied by the metropolitan speech. does right honorable friend agree that most citizens in this country wish to see those used to protect them and other members, but they want to be absolutely sure that they are

circumscribed properly, that they are applied properly, and that they are monitored properly. will he ask the home secretary to liaise with the head of the metropolitan police force to ensure that is the case? >> he makes a very important point. the home secretary is reviewing that at the moment. >> we are grateful for the excellent work the government is doing on air travel and borders. but we have homegrown terrorists. does he agree that we must be vigilant in protecting passengers, particularly those travelling to london on trains and on the tubes. that is probably still the main threats. >> i think we should be vigilant at all times. we know that terrorist groups would like, if they have the chance, to cause chaos in the united kingdom. we know also that we have to improved at all times the security of trains and our

transit infrastructure and the protection of people in public places. lord west is coordinating the work to be done to see what measures can be done to improve security in all these areas, and we will continue to update our counter-terrorism strategy in light of all the information we have. >> long held concern about intelligence services cooperating fully in terms of dealing with terrorism and extremism. why in the last 12 months there have been significant progress? this is an area of great concern. >> i am grateful for what he has done in this area. i think it is important to recognize that at all times we are learning new lessons about how information can be shared as well as information collected. three are learning how we can deal with terrorist threats at an earlier stage by getting the information that is required. so the greater sophistication of the exercise requires also greater coordination between the

agencies. the cabinet secretary has continued to monitor how the operation can be enhanced. >> given the court decision recently regarding to control orders can i endorse the call by the leader of the liberal democrats for the repeal of this legislation, but for completely different and opposite reasons. says he not agree that part of this problem is interweaving into the control order legislation. former secretary has recognized of the human rights act. the best thing we can do is to repeal the human rights act in order to assure that we deal with problems of control order issues by having our own legislation which is processed, to trial, and also habeas corpus to ensure they get a fair trial but that we can fill other

interests. >> i'm surprised it keeps coming back to the european convention of human rights and the human rights act. at the most people would agree the european convention of human rights was written by british lawyers. it is something that's -- some of them conservative, actually, and has been a major advance. i am sorry we are returning to the old, old, old, old debates. at the tate said to him that the protection of the individual is first and foremost in our mind. >> in the u.s. senate members open the day with an hour a general speeches before returning to work on a bill that increases the federal debt ceiling by 1.9 trillion. votes on amendments are possible throughout the day and the legislation is expected to carry over to next week before final passage can occur. health care still very much on the minds of members. democratic leaders continue to work on details of the final bill with the house. the house is in this morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern live on

c-span. live now to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by chaplain alan keiran,

the chaplain's chief of staff. the chaplain: let us pray. most gracious god, the source of all light and wisdom, give to our lawmakers renewed powers to honor you in this national chamber of deliberation. help them to find a clear path through the tangled maze of these challenging times. give them a consuming passion not for their own way, but for your holy will. lord, empower our senators to meet the stupendous dimensions of these epic days with courage and faith. give them receptive minds to follow your guidance each step of the way. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america,

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, january 21, 2010. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform te duties of the chair. signed: robert c. byrd, presidet pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i want to thank the majority leader for giving me the chance to make my very brief opening remarks as i must leave the building shortly. i thank him. mr. president, the senate's newest member is coming down from massachusetts today and we'll have a chance to welcome senator-elect brown to the capitol. obviously, we're delighted to have him. senator-elect brown has captured the attention of the entire country, but he has captured the attention of massachusetts

voters first. and the people of massachusetts sent a very strong message. they were log for someone who would help change the direction in washington, and they put their hope in the candidate whose views best reflected the kind of change they were looking for. so we welcome senator-elect brown to the senate. we look forward to working with him to bring about the change that americans are telling us they want. now we need to show them we are listening. on another matter, madam president, yesterday, several members of the administration's national security team testified before the senate concerning the attempted christmas day attack by the nigerian terrorist abdul batalla. this testimony was troubling indeed and left some wondering why the administration is subjecting this terrorist to criminal prosecution instead of gaining the valuable intelligence that is needed in our war on al qaeda. admiral dennis miller, the

director of national intelligence, stated quite frankly that the christmas day bomber should have been questioned by the detainee interrogation group. he went on to say that neither he nor other important intelligence officials were even consulted on the matter. this raises several troubling questions. first, why were mir annika rights given to the obvious terrorist after only a brief session of questioning which predictably ended his cooperation? second, at what level of authority was this decision taken to treat him as a criminal defendant instead of an unlawful enemy combatant? who made that decision? i asked this question last night of john brennan, the president's senior counterterrorism advisor three times. i asked him the question three times, and he refused to answer. i think the senate is entitled

to know precisely who authorized this. a year ago, the president decided to revise the nation's interrogation policies and to restrict the c.i.a.'s ability to question terrorists. the administration created a high-value detainee interrogation group precisely for the purpose of questioning terrorists. why wasn't this group brought in once this terrorist was taken into custody? americans, madam president, are going to need to know the answers to those questions. madam president, i yie the floor and thank my friend and colleague, the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i had a good conversation with senator-elect brown yesterday. he is coming to washington today. i look forward to visiting with him. we have a time set for him to come by my office. in my conversation, he seemed very pleasant and excited about coming to washington, which i'm sure he is. we talked about his daughter

going to syracuse and the fact that joe biden had graduated from syracuse, and he knew that. anyway, i look forward to our meeting with him. madam president, i would just say briefly on my friend, the senior senator from kentucky's statement about the nigerian terrorist. the one thing we need not do is plol it size the fight against terrorism. john brennan did testify yesterday at our classified briefing, and it was classified. the things that took place there should be classified. people shouldn't be talking about it. the reason that is the case is we want people who come to these classified briefings to be able to speak freely. we have had a long history in our country of people who commit crimes on our territory in our united states of being tried here in the united states. richard reed, the shoe bomber.

this isn't as if it's the first time anything like this happened. and, of course, the rules are even though they are now proceeding in the civil courts, they can always draw back and drop into -- and fall into the category of war criminals if, in fact, the choice is made. just because they are going forward in this manner today doesn't mean they can't drop back in some other manner at some subsequent time. so -- and i would say, even though i don't like to discuss what went on in a closed briefing in a classified setting, i was there from the very beginning to the very end of mr. brennan's presentation, and i never heard him refuse to answer. in fact, he answered the question that was asked in a number of different ways by my friend, the republican leader, and another republican senator. so if there are any questions about anything that mr. brennan had to say, i would hope that

those questions would be asked to him directly. we have had some open hearings. but my point is there is a war on terror that's taking place now. i tried to be as supportive of president bush during his years as president when this was going on after 9/11, and i would hope my republican colleagues would be as supportive of president obama. this is not a partisan issue. madam president, this morning following leader remarks, the senate will proceed to a period of morning business for an hour. senators will be allowed to speak for periods of up to ten minutes each, that time to be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. republicans will control the first half. the majority will control the final half. following morning business, the senate will resume consideration of h. j. res. 45, a joint resolution increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. currently, we have three amendments pending. we hope we can reach short time agreements so we can schedule votes on these amendments.

i understand that s. 2939 introduced earlier today by senator demint is at the desk and is due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the bill is due for its second reading. the clerk will report. mr. reid: thank you. the clerk: s. 2939, a bill to amend title 31, united states code to require an audit of the board of governors of the federal reserve system and the federal reserve banks, and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, i object to any further proceedings on this legislation at this time. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar under rule 14. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will be a period of morning business for one hour, with the

time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, and the senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. with republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president, during our recent health care debate, i heard a number of times from our friends on the other side of the aisle this question: what are republicans for? well, they will be waiting a long time for the answer to that if they are waiting for the republican leader, senator mcconnell, to roll into the senate a wheelbarrow filled with a 2,700-page republican comprehensive health care bill, or for that matter a 1,200-page climate change bill or a 900-page immigration bill. if you have been listening carefully to the senate debate, you will know that on health

care as well as on clean energy, debt reduction, and immigration, for example, republicans have been offering the following this afternoon to 1,000-page bills, going step by step in the right direction to solve problems in a way that re-earns the trust of the american people. comprehensive immigration, comprehensive climate change and comprehensive health care bills have been well intended, but the first two fell of their own weight, and health care, if enacted, would be an historic mistake for our country and a political kamikaze mission for democrats. what has united most republicans against these three bills has not only been ideology but also that they were comprehensive. as george will might write, the congress does not do comprehensive well.

two recent articles help explain the difference between democratic comprehensive approach and the republican step-by-step approach. the first which appeared in the new journal "national affairs" and was written by william chambra of the hudson institute explains the -- quote -- "sheer ambition" of president obama's legislative agenda as the approach of what mr. chambra calls a policy president. he says that the president and most of his advisors have been trained at elite universities, governed by launching a -- quote -- "host of enormous initiatives all at once, formulating comprehensive policies aimed at giving large social systems and indeed society itself more rational and coherent forms of functions." this is governing by taking big bites of several big apples and trying to swallow them all at

once. in addition, according to mr. chambra, the most prominent organizational feature of the obama administration is its reliance on czars. more than the romanovs, said one blogger, to manage broad areas of policy. in this view, systemic problems of health care, of energy, of education and of the environment simply can't be solved in pieces. analyzing chambra's article, david broder of "the washington post" wrote this -- "historically, that approach has not worked." the progressives failed to gain more than a brief ascendancy. the carter and clinton presidencies were marked by striking policy failures." the reason for these failures as broder paraphrased chambra is this highly rational approach fits uncomfortably with the

constitution which apportions power among so many different players, unquote. broder then adds this -- "democracy and representative government are a lot messier than the progressives and their heirs, including obama, want to admit." then james q. wilson, the scholar writing in a memorial essay honoring irving crystal i "the wall street journal" a few months ago says that it's the law of unintended consequences. that's what causes the failure of such comprehensive legislative schemes. explains wilson, "launch a big project and you almost surely discover that you created many things you didn't intend to create." wilson also writes that neo conservativism as crystal originally conceived of it in the 1960's was not an organized ideology or even necessarily conservative, but -- quote -- "a way of thinking about politics rather than a set of principles

and rules. it would have been better if we had been called policy skeptics ," james q. wilson says. the skepticism of chambra and wilson and crystal toward grand legislative policy schemes helps to explain how the law of unintended consequences has made being a member of the so-called party of no a more responsible choice than being a member of the so-called party of yes, we can, if these three recent comprehensive bills on health care, climate change and immigration are the only choices. madam president, it is arrogant to imagine that 100 united states senators, that we are wise enough to reform comprehensively a health care system that constitutes 17% of the world's largest economy and affects 300 million americans of disparate backgrounds and circumstances. how can we be sure, for example, that one unintended consequence

of spending $3.5 trillion over ten years won't mean higher costs and more debt? won't new taxes be passed along to consumers raising premiums and discouraging job growth? won't charging insolvent states $25 billion over three years for a medicaid expansion raise state taxes and college tuitions? ask any governor. and how can a senator be so sure that some provision stuck in a 2,700-page partisan bill in secret meetings and voted on during a snowstorm at 1:00 a.m. won't come back around and slap him or her in the face? such as trying to explain why nebraska got a cornhuskers kickback to pay for its medicare expansion and my state didn't? james q. wilson also wrote in his essay that respect for the law of unintended consequences is -- quote -- "not an argument for doing nothing but it is one," mr. wilson said," for

doing things experimentally. try your idea out in one place and see what happens before you inflict it on the whole country," he suggests. well, if you'll examine the "congressional record," you'll find that republican senators have been following mr. wilson's advice, proposing a step-by-step approach to confronting our nation's challenging -- challenges 173 different times during 2009. may i say that again. republican senators during 2009 173 different times on the floor of the senate have proposed a step-by-step approach toward health care and other of our nation's challenges. on health care, for example, we first suggested setting a clear goal. that is, reducing costs. then we proposed the first six steps toward achieving that goal. number one, allowing small businesses to pool their resources to purchase health plans. number two, reducing junk

lawsuits against doctors. number three, allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines. number four, expanding health savings accounts. number five, promoting wellness and prevention. and number six, taking steps to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. we offered these six proposals in complete legislative text. it totaled 182 pages, all six. the democratic majority rejected all six of our proposals and ridiculed the approach, in part because our approach wasn't comprehensive. or take another example. in july, all 40 republican senators announced agreement upon four steps to produce low-cost clean energy and create jobs. one, create 100 new nuclear power plants, or at least the environment in which they could be built. number two, electrify half our cars and trucks. number three, explore offshore

for natural gas oil. and number four, double energy research and development for new forms of energy. this step-by-step republican clean energy plan is an alternative to the kerry-boxer national energy tax which would impose an economywide cap-and-trade scheme driving jobs overseas looking for cheap energy and collecting hundreds of billions of dollars each year for a slush fund with which congress can play. or here's another example. in 2005, a bipartisan group of us in congress asked the national academies to identify the first ten steps congress should take to preserve america's competitive advantage in the world so we could keep growing jobs. the academies appointed a distinguished panel, including now-secretary chu, that recommended 20 such steps. congress enacted two-thirds of them. the america competes act of 2007, as we call it, was

far-reaching legislation but it was fashioned step-by-step. or another example. when i was governor of tennessee in the 1980's, my goal was raising family incomes for what was then the ten -- the third poorest state. i found as i went along that the best way to move toward that goal was step by step. some steps smaller, some steps larger, such as changing banking laws, defending right-to-work policies, keeping debt and taxes low, recruiting japanese industry and then the auto industry, building four-lane highways so that suppliers could get to the auto plants, and then a ten-step better schools program, one step of which made tennessee the first state to pay teachers more for teaching well. i didn't try to turn our whole state upsid up upside-down all e but working with leaders in both parties i did help a change and

grow step by step within a few years, we were the fastest growing state in family incomes. madam president, according to a recent survey by on message incorporated, 61% of independents, 60% of ticket splitters and 77% of republicans answered "yes" to the following question. quote: "i would rather see congress take a more step-by- -- more thoughtful, step-by-step approach focusing on commonsense reforms." human experience has always taught that enough small steps in the right direction is one good way to felt you where you want to go. and also a good way along the way to avoid many unexpected and unpleasant consequences. tuesday's election in massachusetts is the latest reminder that the american people are tired of risky comprehensive schemes featuring taxes, debt and washington takeovers, as well as lots of hidden and unexpected surprises.

it's time to declare that the era of the 1,000-page bill is over or the era of the 2,000-page bill is over or the era of the 2,700-page bill is over. a wise approach would be to set a clear goal, such as reducing health care costs, take a few steps in that direction, and then a few more, so that we can start solving the country's problems in a way that reearns the trust of the american people. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to include in the record an article from the "wall street journal" of monday, september 21, written by james q. wilson, an article by david broder from "the washington post" of september 24, and an recall from the magazine "national affairs," written by william chambra. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: madam president, i rise today to speak in support of the pending amendment. this amendment is called "the erasing our national debt through accountability and responsibility plan." madam president, i want to start out today and say i'm very proud to be a cosponsor of what i consider to be a very commonsense amendment. the troubled asset relief program known as tarp was enacted in the fall of 2008 for the u.s. treasury to buy toxic assets, primarily mortgage-backed securities. it was sold to congress as having a sole purpose of getting bad assets out of the market. it was sold for the idea of

stabilizing the economy. madam president, at the time that this was sold, this was it, this is what we told people that this was going to do. supposedly it was going to be a one-time, very narrowly focused program during a time of -- of the worst economic crisis that we had seen in decades. lawmakers at that time were warned, you know, if you don't act now, if you don't take this action, the failure to act is going to be devastating. yet washington, after they got approval of this plan, almost immediately threw out the original game plan. you see, money was not used to buy those troubled assets. instead, it was given to large banks with very, very few

strings attached. government hoped banks would generate small business loans, would send the money out to allow people to do auto loans and mortgage loans, and that just simply did not happen. now, there's plenty of finger pointing going on as to why that didn't happen, but the bottom line is that consumers were left to battle the credit crunch alone and they felt abandoned in their fight. what did washington expect when it gave away practically free money? from the get-go, the tarp rule book was just simply tossed out the window. now, since then tarp has morved imorphedin so many ways that moe

can't even -- morphed in so many ways that most people can't even remember, can't even think about its original purpose. the american people have unquestionably lost faith in this $700 billion taxpayer-funded boondoggle. they expected it to get the economy up and lending. now they feel duped, and i don't blame them. instead of jump starting lending in the economy, what this has turned into is a revolving slush fund for unrelated spending projects. it just goes on and on. but let me just run through a sample of what tarp has been used to fund. number one, by general motors. who knew that the united states government would spend about $50 billion of tarp buying not

only an ownership interest in general motors but a controlling interest? madam president, back home in nebraska, when i've talked to nebraska citizens about this, i say to them, you know, if i had come out during my campaign and suggested that the president of the united states would literally over a weekend have the ability to buy general motors without any kind of congressional approval, no one -- no one -- would have believed me, and yet that's exactly what happened. number two, there was a plan called cash for clunkers and we all know about that plan. number three, the house-passed second stimulus, $150 billion in tarp to fund more unrelated spending. let me just give you a few

examples. $800 million for amtrak. $65 million for housing vouchers. $500 million for summer youth employment. $300 million for a college work-study program. number four, the doc fix. a quarter of a trillion dollars of that were would never be paid back, an immediate loss to the taxpayer. number five, off-budget highway funding. and i could go on and on. the list just doesn't end. the projects being funded out of this now new slush fund just don't seem to have an ending point. now, some of these projects might be quite meritorious. you might look at them and say, gosh, in the normal budgetary process, i would want to be a part of voting for those

projects. i might support some of them in the normal budgeting process, but not through some no accountability slush fund. you see, madam president, tarp has spiraled out of control and it needs to end today, immediately. tarp was never intended, never intended to finance a wide array of spending programs where the taxpayer literally was going to be the loser. we must find a way to pay for government spending, not try to disguise it in tarp. i am asking my colleagues to pass the thune amendment and end the no accountability tarp slush fund. this amendment would immediately stop the treasury department from spending more from the tarp

money -- tarp funds. it would repeal the administration's ill-advised extension of tarp through october 2010. it would require tarp repayments to reduce our national debt. no cleaver stat industry interpretations to get -- no clever statutory interpretations to get around the debt requirement. no more reckless spending. no more russian roulette with taxpayers' money. not only is this common sense, but it is fiscal sense and it is the right thing to do. one thing is absolutely obvious: taxpayers are asking us to work together to get deficit spending under control, to find solutions to problems that trouble this great nation. this amendment, in my judgment,

is absolutely the first step, a good start to get a handle on out-of-control spending, to start restoring faith with the american people. if tarp is ended, we show the american people that we are listening and that congress is, in fact, serious about protecting taxpayers' money. madam president, i yield the floor and i sug quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: madam president? the esnar from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask the quorum call be suspended and speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: a speaker on the floor earlier, senator johanns of nebraska, was talking about the tarp program. many of us recall this is a program that was started under the previous administration. president bush and his secretary of the treasury henry paulson came to us along with the federal reserve chairman ben bernanke and basically told us that america's economy and perhaps the global economy was on the edge of an abyss, that we could see what looked like an economic downturn turn not only into a recession but worse if we didn't act and act quickly. and the proposal they made was to go after what they called toxic assets, and so they created a program called the toxic assets relief program, the tarp program. they asked for some

some $800 billion, an enormous sum of money, in order to go to financial institution that is were teetering on the brink of collapse and save them in the hopes that in doing that, they could stabilize our economy. now, even though i took a few economics courses in college and follow the course of american business, at least as a casual observer, it was hard to argue against their request because my fear was that failure to do anything would, in fact, bring this economy down, costing us dramatic numbers of jobs and failures in the business community. and so i voted for the tarp program. it really seemed like one of the few things that we could do that might have some chance of stabilizing the economy. now, of course, it's not the most popular program in america. the idea of taking hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to give to banks and investment operations that have failed, literally failed to the point of failure

seem to me to be a rescue effort for a group that doesn't usually garner much sympathy in terms of the activities that they are engaged in day to day. the money went to a large share of these banks and financial institutions, and the net result is that virtually all of them were saved from collapse, all but lehman brothers which had failed before this request. and so the economy moved forward and then the bankers repaid the effort of the american taxpayers by announcing, many of them, that they now felt that times were so good for them, they could start declaring bonuses for their officers and their employees, bonuses. in the real world of 40-hour work weeks and day-to-day grind, most people see a bonus as a reward for good performance or successful performance. many of these financial

institutions were literally the victims of their own greed and their own malice and their own poor planning, and then after taxpayers rescued them with tarp money, they wanted to turn around and reward themselves for good conduct. it grated on the american people, and this senator as well, and the tarp program, which was initiated to keep these banks from failing, is one which few of us would step up and say well, let's try that again, that was a great idea. i, frankly, think it was a probably necessary thing to do at the moment, but it's not a model that i want to re-create. certainly when you look at the reaction of the banks after we help them. the senator from nebraska comes to the floor and basically says let's liquidate and end this program. on its face, it sounds like a good thing but for one thing. now some of these banks and financial institutions are paying us back, with interest. we hope they all would. maybe most of them will.

the taxpayers deserve that. the money that's coming back in is not like found money. we anticipated a payback, but it's money which creates an opportunity. now the senator from nebraska would have us basically eliminate that program and the money coming in couldn't be spent for other purposes. i think that's a mistake. we spent up to $800 billion to rescue wall street and as the cliche goes, it's time for us to consider spending that money to rescue main street. for instance, if we took a substantial portion of the tarp money coming back from the big banks and the interest coming back from the big banks and redirected it to community banks expressly for the purpose of providing credit for small business, then i think we could be engaged in an effort most americans will agree will save businesses, save jobs, and even create the opportunity for more

jobs. if we don't take the tarp money to do this, we know what's going to happen. banks large and small will continue to deny credit to small businesses. as a result, many of them will fail, a few of them will expand, and the economy will continue to move forward in a more positive way but at a glacial pace. i would say to the senator from nebraska that if he went back to omaha as i go back to chicago and springfield in my state and meet with small business owners, he will find that they are desperate for this credit. why not take the money that once was directed to the large banks, now pay it back to our government, and redirect it to smaller businesses. that really is the bedrock of our economy. and so i -- i hope the senator from nebraska will reflect on that. his anger about what the big banks did after we rescued them should not be vented on small businesses in nebraska and illinois that need credit

assistance. it's also possible to take some of these tarp funds and turn them into a rescue for a lot of victims of the current recession. for one, we should be spending this money to help a lot of projects get under way which will help build the economy. i just had a meeting in my office with a group of mayors from illinois. the mayors from across the nation are out here in washington. the story they bring is common no matter where they're from. they have seen a downturn in revenues, property tax and sales tax revenues, and an increased demand for services. that's being played out at every level of government: local, state and federal. and so many of them don't have the resources to take care of basic problems, from the repaving of streets to the building of -- and rebuilding of essential infrastructure. and what they're asking us for is help so that they can meet those basic needs and at the same time create jobs in doing

it. there was a tiger grant application under this new administration stimulus bill that gave local units of government a chance to put on the table critical projects that they could initiate and create jobs in so doing, and the competition was fierce. $60 billion in applications for $1.5 billion in funds. well, it shows you that there is a pent-up demand there for these infrastructure projects. the rate of unemployment in the construction industry in america is much higher than the average, almost twice the average in most states. so if we take these tarp funds coming back to our treasury and redirect them into infrastructure grants, like tiger grants, we would be creating new opportunities for building infrastructure critical to our economy and creating jobs

immediately. that construction worker who goes back to work making certain that we have good roads and bridges is going to take that paycheck home and the family's going to spend it. and as they spend it, the shopkeepers and others that -- where they do business are going to profit and they'll respend it, and that's how the economy starts to churn forward and that's how jobs are saved and created. so we shouldn't let our frustration over the greed and selfishness of the biggest banks in america and financial institutions who literally thumb their nose at taxpayers lead us to close down an opportunity to take these tarp funds and turn them into jobs in america, turn them into a lifeline for small businesses. now, many people look at our economy today and say, it's not good enough, and they're right. i have to echo the sentiments of one of my colleagues in our

delegation, congressman phil hare, who says if he ever hears this phrase, "jobless recovery" one more time, he's going to get sick to his stomach. i agree with him. a recovery is a recovery if, in fact, jobs are restored and created. so we need to focus on that as well. but make no mistake, we've made some progress over the course of the last year office. i just might remind my colleagues and those following floor comments that last april, the dow jones index was in about the 6,000 to 7,000 range. today it's at 10,000. it indicates more confidence in the future of our economy, more investment in our stock market and i hope an end to the fear and lack of confidence which were part of the worst in our recession. we've also seen the unemployment figures, job losses were more than $700,000 a month -- pardon

me, 700,000 a month when president obama took office. now they are coming down and that's good. i won't be satisfied, nor will the president, until they're on the positive side of the ledger, but we have made some progress. i think the latest unemployment figures, monthly figures, were in the range of 80,000 to 100,000. that's a long way from 700,000 but it still gives us a lot of ground to travel before we can catch up. so i would say that the administration has us moving in the right direction. we need to not only stick by the stimulus bill, which the president proposed and we supported on the democratic side of the aisle with a handful of republican senators, but we also need to think about the next stimulus, the next jobs program that will create good-paying jobs and help small businesses survive. that, to me, is essential and i hope that we don't let some amendment come along which literally takes away the source of funds that we may need for this next job stimulus.

whether you're in a republican state with republican senators or a democratic state, it makes no difference. unemployed people need a fighting chance to get their jobs back. i'd also like to say, madam president, that there were comments on the floor this morning by the minority leader, republican leader, as well as the majority leader, senator reid, about the so-called christmas bomber who was caught in the act trying to detonate some type of explosive or inflammatory device on an airplane. we have had extensive hearings. the president has gone in to quite an extensive investigation in terms of any failure in our security efforts and what happened on that day. i think the president's candor and honesty on this have been helpful. he has acknowledged the fact that we could have done a better job. we had collected a lot of information and pieces of it when they were considered together really pointed toward a problem that this man never

should have been allowed to get on this airplane, and the president has acknowledged that, as well as his national security advisors. now a question has arisen as to what to do with this suspected, alleged terrorist from nigeria. he is currently being held, incarcerated, at a federal prison in myland, michigan, which is 60 miles west of detroit. that is not an unusual thing. in fact, 350 convicted terrorists are being detained in federal prisons across america, including in my home state. they are being safely held without any fear in the surrounding community because our professionals at the federal bureau of prisons know how to do their job and do it well. the question is whether or not he should be investigated and prosecuted in a military commission or in the courts of the land. some say, well, if he's a suspected terrorist and not a citizen of the united states, then send him to a military commission because terrorism is, in fact, a war against america.

that on its surface has some appeal. they also argue that if he goes through the courts of our land, that he is going to be given certain privileges that we accord to citizens when they are arrested and tried which he might not otherwise have if he goes through a military commission. and there is some value to that statement as well. but here's what we have found, here's the track record. since 9/11, we have had over 190 convictions of terrorists in the courts of america, the criminal court system of america, our federal courts. 190. we have had three, literally three who have been prosecuted by military commissions. so those who are trying to push more and more prosecutions into military commissions should look at the scoreboard and the scoreboard tells us we have a strong track record of prosecuting terrorists in our courts, whether it's richard

reid, the shoe bomber -- a similar mode of operation as the man who was arrested on the northwest airlines plane -- or a suspect arrested in peoria, illinois, mr. albari, who was ultimately tried in peoria, now incarcerated in marian, illinois, at the federal prison, they went through the regular court system, successfully prosecuted and put away. moussaoui, the suspected 19th terrorist on 9/11, has been given a life sentence and now is at a supermax facility at florence, colorado. we're never going to hear from him again, nor should we, but he went through our regular court system. so those who want to close off our regular court system to the prosecution of terrorists ignore the obvious. that has been the most successful way to prosecute, to incarcerate and to keep those who are accused of terrorism and to keep america safe. let's not have an automatic visceral reaction that every time a terrorist is somehow arrested, that they need to be tried at a military commission.

let us give this administration the option. let them decide which forum works best to bring justice and to protect america. in some cases, it may be military commissions. we recently had attorney general holder tell us that he had sent five suspected terrorists to be tried by military commissions, five through the courts of our land. give the f.b.i., give the department of justice and the department of defense that latitude to pick the best place to achieve this type of prosecution. i understand in this case, of the so-called christmas bomber, that there was a fumbling in terms of which direction the case should go. there's no excuse for that. we've got to learn from that mistake and we have to make certain it doesn't happen again. but to say that automatically every suspected terrorist has to go to a military commission is to send them into a venue, a court venue with rules that are currently being developed and

tested and are likely to be challenged by courts all over the land. to send them into our regular court system is to -- is to bring them into a system with an established set of laws, established precedent, where we have successfully prosecuted over 190 alleged terrorists since 9/11, while in military commissions, only three, 190-3. the score is overwhelming. so i think we ought to take some consolation in the fact that our court systems have worked so well. let me make one other point. the administration has asked in my state of illinois if our governor and general assembly will accept the creation of a new federal prison in thompson, illinois, which will be used for both bureau of prisons regular detainees and those who are incarcerated as well as a section where fewer than 100 of the remaining guantanamo detainees will be held under

military supervision. our state has considered it. we recently in december had a commission decide that this surplus prison, which is eight years old, state-of-the-art, modern, supermax prison, will be sold to the federal government. we are now negotiating between the state of illinois and the federal government about the price of that facility. i hope that negotiation is resolved soon. i look forward to its completion. the critics of opening thompson federal prison in illinois argue that it is unsafe for us to detain any of the guantanamo prisoners in the continental united states. those critics overlook the obvious. as i mentioned earlier, 350 convicted terrorists are being held in federal prisons across america today, including other prisons in illinois. secondly, this christmas bomber, who was caught on the northwest

airlines plane, is being held in myland, michigan, a federal prison 60 miles west of detroit, without incident or concern. it's an indication to me that our federal prison system is fully capable of incarcerating suspected terrorists and those who have been convicted. and those who would spread fear that somehow bringing them to the continental united states is going to compromise our security have yet to point to one single instance where a prisoner detained in a supermax facility has he have -- has ever escaped. this thompson prison, incidentally, is going to build a new perimeter fence which will make is the safest, most secure prison in not only the united states but perhaps in the world. the people in this community, with the prospect of 3,000 new jobs in this weak economy, are anxious for this prison to get up and running. they have come out politically, both political parties, those that have been leblghted to office at every

level supporting this thompson prison. i think what happened to this alleged terrorist from the northwest airlines flight in milan, michigan, has proved positive. we can continue to hold these terrorists. we don't have to stand in awe or fear. we really should stand without quaking and trembling and understand we can look these terrorists in the eye, put you in this prison and you're going nowhere, buddy. that's what will happen to this person and will happen to those who were detained in thompson, illinois. i see my colleague from louisiana is here, and i yield the floor, madam president. ms. landrieu: thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, and i thank my colleague from illinois for his passionate and coherent and convincing arguments about the issue of how to detain terrorists and knowing that we can do that very well here in the united states and also his explanations about the financial situation and some of the things that the president is doing to

correct that situation, with you, madam president, i came to the floor this morning in morning business to talk about a different subject and one that is quite troubling to americans as we watch the unfolding horror in haiti and as we stand ready and willing to do everything we can, not only as leaders in the united states senate and congress, but our constituents are leaning forward, wanting in every corner of this country to do everything that they can to help. and it is very frustrating to see, again, some of the similar, almost early similar scenes from having lived through katrina and rita and gustav and ike along the gulf coast, whether those scenes were from new orleans as we remember or plaqueman parish or st. bernard or galveston or

gulf ward or bullock i. the scenes are quite fresh in the minds of americans. i think people are thinking the same way i am, which is when will we ever get this right? we know that sometimes things happen that are unpredictable, but this is not one of those cases either, just like some parts of the katrina disaster were quite known and predictable. this, too. and that's a story for another day. but as we struggle through this situation, i want to thank, begin to thank the administration, not only ours but administrations around the world for what they are trying to do and say i know we can do better and everybody watching this knows we can do better, and one day we will. we want to do what we can as quickly as we can, and i want to stay focused with many of my colleagues here on one aspect of this recovery and response and

recovery, and that is the aspect of children and particularly orphan children. i have been very proud to be the leader of the coalition in this congress of over 220 members. we are completely united and completely nonpartisan in our advocacy for orphans here in america and around the world, and this is a moment where i would like to spend, although my time is short, saying that this is a good time for us as a country and as members of congress to really try to understand the magnitude of the challenge before us. let me begin before i go into the situation to personally and by name thank the members of the united states senate that have stepped up today quickly, forcefully to join this effort. madam president, your name is at the top of the list.

you're on the top of my list here, the junior senator from new york. we thank you for your extraordinary leadership. the senator from colorado, mark udall. the senator from massachusetts, john kerry. the senator from michigan, carl levin. chris bond from missouri. arlen specter from pennsylvania. bob casey from pennsylvania. herb kohl from wisconsin. mark warner from virginia. senator barrasso, senator johnson, senator bennet, senator stabenow, senator bill nelson from florida, nor lautenberg, senator thune, senator mccain, and senator hutchison, and my co-chair in all of this, obviously senator inhofe. we are a bipartisan group. our numbers are growing every day. numbers of senators that say that we want to focus on the welfare of children and

particularly orphans and come up with a better plan to respond to this humanitarian disaster as it relates to them. we are committed to the fundamental -- really almost a concept that i don't know how anyone could argue, but people do, but we, all of us understand that children actually belong in families. i know this is a difficult concept for some people in our country, in the international community to grasp, but children don't do well alone. children don't do really well in orphans no matter how well they are run. children really don't want to grow up in group homes, which we have thousands of children in our own country in group homes. actually, children want to grow up in families. this may be a startling concept for some, but not for us. that's why we advocate for child

welfare policies that at its beginning, middle, and end advocate the basic fundamental truth that children are best raised in a family with one responsible parent, if not two. we don't think there should be any argument about that, so we are puzzled as to why we have some difficulty sometimes explaining that in situations like haiti or in america or in places in africa or central america around the world, there are so many barriers to adoption. it breaks our heart. it just breaks our heart, one barrier after another. we think this is great simple. we think these barriers have to come down, and we are determined to pull them down. i want to give some numbers to you all that will be startling to you because they are to me. in america, we have 320 million people, approximately.

we have 100,000 orphans. it's a lot of orphans in our own country. they are invisible to people. we try to bring their pictures to the floor sometime and tell people there are 100,000 magnificent children of all races and shapes and sizes who are in need of a family right here at home. we do our best to promote domestic adoptions and have been doing a much better job. americans adopt about 120,000 children a year, mostly from our foster care system. some infant adoptions in america and happily as well, 20,000 international adoptions. but madam president, i'm glad you're sitting down because when you hear this number, you would fall down if you weren't sitting down. haiti, that has nine million people -- remember, we have 320 million. they have nine million. they had 380,000 orphans before the earthquake struck. i'm going to repeat that. they have nine million people. they had 380,000 orphans before

the earthquake struck. we can't begin to estimate how many orphans there are today, but i promise you that number has at least doubled. now, i am not going to be part of a system that says with those numbers and that truth, that our job is to find those children, dust them off, fix their broken limbs, heal them physically, try to help them emotionally, and then stick them in orphanages for the rest of their life. i'm not going to support that, and i'm hoping that the members on this side won't support that either. that's what we have had for the last 50 and 100 years in terms of policy all over the world, even in haiti. we can't have that anymore. and the treaty, the international treaty that we have all been a part of trying to help says this: it says every

child should stay in the family to which they were born, with the parents that brought them in the world. when they are separated from those parents through death or disease or famine or war, they are then to be placed as quickly as possible with a relative that is willing and able to raise them. if i passed away, the president knows, the chairman, the president knows, my sisters or one of my brothers would step in. if my husband and i died, my sisters and brothers would step in to raise our children. that's normally what's done all over the world. it's no surprise. but when there is no family member to take in a child, then the treaty says you shall find a home for that child somewhere in their country, in their community, which makes sense. culturally, that makes sense, will i'm a big believer in crosscultural adoption and biracial adoption, huge supporter of that, but i understand we want to try to place children as close to their initial beginnings as possible. but madam president, when that

becomes impossible, it's our job to find them a home somewhere else in the human family, because, after all, we are one human family. if anybody would like to come to the floor to disagree with me, i look forward to debating that with them. i don't think i will find any argument here among senators from the very conservative to the most liberal. it is just a basic moral tenet that we are one human family. so it makes me so angry when i see government, sometimes even our own, sometimes even our own bureaucracy, sometimes even our own embassies, fighting that concept because they throw up their hands and say we just can't. it's overwhelming. we can't find a way to do it. every excuse in the world to keep children from the one thing they need most is a parent, is someone to love them. and if anyone thinks that just

feeding children and clothing children is what god is calling us to do, i would beg to differ. yes, we have to keep them alive. yes, we have to give them care, but most importantly little human beings need bigger human beings to raise them, and if they don't get that, they end up not growing up in a strong way. they end up in our prison systems, they end up homeless, they end up sick. not that every child that's in a family in america, even with the most loving parents, ends up always wonderfully, but they most certainly have a better opportunity. so i'm just putting a line in the sand here and speaking to my colleagues that i'm proud of the 40 members of congress, house and senate members, that sent a letter to secretary of state hillary clinton who all of her life has been a leader on this. we are so grateful these there as secretary of state.

we sent this letter to secretary napolitano, and i'm going to put this letter in the record and i'm pleased that the letter that we just sent three days ago has already been responded to. the departments here have issued humanitarian parole for the orphans that were in the process of being adopted, and there were a couple of hundred. parents here have been desperate. they have already been matched with their children, they have pictures of their children, they were in the process of adopting these children. you can imagine how desperate they are. that process is under way. we're going to continue to press to make sure that not just the green light was held up but that our government at every level from defense to security to transportation to homeland security is doing everything they can to execute the swift and safe removal of these children from haiti to american families that will nurture them and support them.

then the next step -- and i see my colleague from utah here, and i will end in just a minute. the next step will be, madam president, to work with a broad coalition of faith-based communities in our country and around the world with private sector corporations, large and small, with individual americans that want to contribute and be a part of this effort. i intend to lead and set up a framework so that thousands and thousands, hundreds of thousands of orphans in haiti can find the family to which they were born. we're going to try very hard, if not a relative in haiti, if not some place in haiti for them to live in the joy and comfort of a supporting and loving family, and if not then somewhere in the world where these hundreds of thousands of yofers -- and -- of orphans, and i hope not to say this but potentially a million, but let's hope that number never reaches there -- finds families.

this is not going to happen in the next 24 hours or 48 hours, but with our concerted help and vision and leadership, it can happen, not just in haiti but around the world including right here in the united states of america. so i want to thank my colleague jim inhofe who is the co-chair of the adoption caucus. i want to thank the members of the senate and the house, particularly minimum cooper, michelle bachman and others who have stepped up so quickly, and we will be speaking on this floor quite a few times in the future, madam president, as we give updates about this issue. and i thank the americans who have been an outpouring of support for children in haiti, for all people in haiti, but particularly the chirch and -- children and particularly the orphans that need our help. i yield the floor to my good friend from utah. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of h.j. res. which the clerk will report. the clerk: hsm j. res. 45,

increasing the -- h.j. res. 45, increasing the statutory limit on the public debt. mr. baucus: mr. president, we are now back -- the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, we are now back on the debt limit legislation. in just a second, i'll cease speaking so the senator from utah can address the senate. i think we're making progress. three minutes -- three amendments are now pending. first, the substitute amendmen amendment -- excuse me, the substitute amendment raising the debt limit amount. second, an amendment by the senator from south dakota on tarp. and third, an amendment by this senator to protect social security. we anticipate that the senators from north dakota and new hampshire will be offering their amendment to create a budget commission sometime midday today. i am hopeful that the senate can schedule votes on my social security amendment, the conrad-gregg commission amendment, and perhaps the pending thune amendment as well early this afternoon. and we are hopeful that we can continue to process amendments

with the goal of wrapping this legislation up early next week. before i take a few moments to describe the amendment i offered yesterday to protect social security, i suggest the chair recognize the senator from utah, who wishes to address the senate. the presiding officer: the chair recognizes the senator from utah. mr. bennett: thank you, madam president, and i thank the chairman of the finance committee, senator baucus, for his courtesy. he has always been most accommodating for those of us, even those of us who disagree with him, because that -- that contributes to the sense of comity here in the senate. i'm grateful to him. i am in favor of the thune amendment which will be voted on i understand sometime this afternoon. i do not come to this brand-new. this is an amendment that i cosponsored with senator thune back in october of 2009 and it

has to do with the question of the survival or continuation of tarp. my colleague -- or my constituents are often confused as to what tarp really is and there is an attempt many times to wrap the whole question of bailout together in any vote that has to do with the expenditure of federal funds in the face of the financial crisis we faced last year, is being called a bailout. so i explained to my constituents, there is a significant difference between tarp and stimulus funds or bailout funds that were spent outside of tarp. and take them back to the definition of what tarp stands for. we use so many acronyms around here that we sometimes confuse our voters as to what we're talking about. but since i was part of the negotiations that produced the bill that was known as tarp, i wanted to just lay that

predicate for a moment. tarp stands for troubled asset relief program, and we were focusing at the time that bill was passed, on the impact of troubled assets on the financial system. those that were present when chairman bernanke and treasury secretary paulson spoke to us will remember that they came to the congress and said, we are facing a crisis and we have four days before there's an entire meltdown worldwide. one of my colleagues made the comment, i feel like i'm in a james bond movie with this kind of threat hanging over us, and so a group of us who were members of the banking committee met, under the leadership of chairman dodd, and we began to discuss this. i will make it clear that the discussion was completely bipartisan. there was no attempt on the part of anybody, with maybe or or two

exceptions, to do -- with maybe one or two exceptions, to do any kind of bipartisan gamesmanship. it was, we were focusing on the problem and what do we have to do to deal with it. the proposal was made by the secretary of the treasury that he had to be equipped with the authority to stand up before the entire world and say, i have $700 billion, the authority from the treasury to spend $700 billion to deal with this problem of troubled assets. now, i called an economist whose judgment i trust before i entered into those activities and i said, tell me if this is going to work. his first comment was, i'm afraid $700 billion may not be enough. because the crisis is so serious and the challenge to the confidence of the banking system so deep that we do need something very dramatic and $700 billion might not be dramatic enough. but then he made the comment, which i found very useful, he

said, but, in fact, senator, the treasury department cannot shovel $700 billion out the door in any kind of rapid pattern. so this is more of a public relations kind of statement than it is a practical matter. and i said, okay, how fast could the treasury spend the money in an effort to start acquiring these troubled assets and deal with this problem. he said, $50 billion a month is probably the fastest that people could -- could spend the money, actually disburse the money. so when we got into that meeting and started discussing what became tarp, i made the propos proposal, instead of giving them $700 billion, since they can only -- they can only disburse $50 billion a month, why don't we give them $250 billion, which is five months worth, and see if it works. and the response that came back from secretary paulson's office was, $250 billion will not

satisfy the marketplace as a whole that we are serious. and i went back to the comment again of my economist friend who said even $700 billion might not be enough. well, without going into any further details, we went through the situation and we came up with this solution. and it was accepted in a bipartisan fashion. we said, all right, we will give secretary paulson his $700 billion headline. we'll allow him to stand up and say, the congress has authorized the treasury department to spend $700 billion dealing with this problem of troubled assets. however, the fine print makes it clear that they really are only going to have authority for $350 billion without coming back to congress to get approval for the second $350 billion. so the headline was there, secretary paulson was able to get on the telephone and call all of the central bankers all over the world and say, the u.s.

congress is going to approve $700 billion of authority, but the fine print said you're going to break it up into two tranches, the first one $350 billion for immediate debt burstal -- and again, that will take months to do -- and then come back for the second $350 billion after you see how it works. here in the senate, we approved that by a large margin and it went forward, and i voted for that first tranche of $350 billion because i was convinced that the challenge really was there and that the crisis was real. looking back on it and having testimony from a wide range of economists and observers before the banking committee, i am convinced that that first vote was the right vote. the crisis was there and the $700 billion ted line did, indeed, avert the crisis.

well, then, the administration came back and said we need the authority for the second $350 billion and at that point i felt the crisis had passed and i looked at the way the administration had handled the fist $350 billion, which was different than what we were -- we were told, and i said, i'm not going to vote to approve the second $350 billion. i don't think you can make the case for the second $350 billion in the face of the facts that we have before us that is as -- is in any way as compelling as the case for the first $350 billion. so i voted against the second $350 billion. well, then we saw this be used in the ways that were never, ever discussed when we adopted that first tranche of $350 billion. we saw it used for the auto bailout after the congress refused to appropriate money for the auto bailout. he said, okay, these are not necessarily troubled assets of the kind that tarp was supposed to address but it's something that we're going to do.

and as a result of that, the auto companies got $25 billion and the u.s. treasury got stock in two bankrupt companies. not my idea of a really good deal for the taxpayers. then we've seen stimulus packages and other bailout packages and other activities, and the tarp money being used in a variety of different ways contrary to what we were told at the time we made that first decision. all right. one of the things that was important to understand about that first decision was that we were going to acquire assets and that when the crisis passed, those assets could be liquidated and money would come back into the treasury. yes, money would go out to the tune of $350 billion, but as the crisis passed, money would come back we hoped to the tune of $350 billion and maybe even more

because there was interest to be paid on those areas where there were loans, there were warrants that were established on those areas where there were investments, the assets themselves were assumed to have more value than we might have when we acquired them, and there were economic studies at the time that said the taxpayers will make money off of tarp. we will get the money back with interest, with additional revenue. all right, that has started to come to pass, at least of that first tranche of tarp, the money has started to come back. over $100 billion has come back for a variety of reasons, in some cases because the firms are capable now of paying it back, in some cases because the firms want to get out from under control of the treasury, the control that goes with having a treasury investment, and the money is coming back in. now, in that meeting where we decided that we would do the $350 billion rather than the full $700 billion, we made another decision and it was ve very, very clear for all of the senators that were in that

meeting and that drafted that bill -- i was not one of the ones that drafted it. i'm not a lawyer so that was handed over to others. but we made it very clear, when the money comes back, it can be used for only one purpose and that purpose is to pay down the national debt. if we're going to raise the national debt by $350 billion, when we get the $350 billion back, it should go solely to retire the debt that was created when the money went out. everyone agreed to that, and i believe that was written into the bill. so it came as a great surprise to me as the money started to come back that secretary geithner said, we're going to recycle it, we're going to use it for other kinds of rescues, other kinds of financial circumstances. and along with many of my colleagues that were privy to the original discussion, i said, wait a minute, that's not what

the law says. the law says, as it comes back, it has to go to pay down the national debt. no, said secretary geithner in our hearing, that's not the way our lawyers interpret it. our lawyers look at this and we say, you in the congress gave us the authority to recycle this and spend it on other things in addition to the original crisis. it is for that reason, among others, that i joined with senator thune in offering an amendment earlier last year -- earlier in this congress saying no, we're going to end tarp on the 31st of december, which was the original date that we set for this. we were unsuccessful in that amendment. now we're going to try again. we're going to offer the amendment that says, all right, we feel there's been a bait-and-switch here. we feel this administration has changed the rules from the way we thought we wrote them --

there may even, indeed, be a lawsuit here because if the law really says what we believe it said, the administration is breaking the law. but let's deal with this in a congressional way. let's simply end tarp right now, making it clear that the money as it comes back cannot be used for any other purpose. the underlying amendment -- the underlying resolution to which this amendment is being offered is one to raise the national debt. this amendment is one that will take steps fo to lower the natil debt. i think it's consistent with the history, it's certainly consistent with the history that i have had on this issue trying to deal with the tarp problem right from the very beginning. i think it's the right thing to do. so i am grateful to senator thune for offering this amendment. i am happy to be one of the lead cosponsors of the amendment, as i was previously when we tried to sunset tarp on the 31st of

december. i'm going to do everything i can to try to convince my colleagues that while the recession clearly continues, the crisis that spawned tarp is over. there is no international financial crisis of confidence in the banking system anymore. the crisis of the toxic assets that had us worried about having only four days to act has passed and yet the instrument that was created to deal with that crisis lives on under a new heading, being used for new purposes. it is, indeed, i think an example of bait-and-switch. so for that reason, i urge my colleagues to get hyped the thune amendment which we will vote on later today, recognize that a promise made to the taxpayers a year ago -- a little more than a year ago is a promise that we need to keep, and responsible government says

when we're debating increasing the debt limit for the national debt, a step that will reduce the national debt is clearly one we ought to take. i yield the floor. mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i thank my colleague, senator bennett from utah, for his statement. he makes some very good points. although i will not be able to support his amendment, i want to say his presentation and points he makes are really quite good. madam president, i have an amendment which i would like to explain. it's really very simple. it would protect social security from cuts in the fast track process proposed to be created in the coffin rad-gregg amendment. it's clear from the public statements of senators conrad and gregg that they have painted a big red target on social security and medicare. that's what this commission is all about.

it's a big roll of the dice for social security and medicare. millions of american seniors rely on social security. social security is a commitment to america's seniors. i might say if we did not have social security, estimates i have seen are about half of american seniors today would be living in poverty. social security basically has kept a lot of americans, senior americans from living in poverty. we should therefore prevent a fast track process from reneging on social security's commitment to those people and putting a lot of people back in poor economic straits. numerous groups representing seniors are called for excluding social security from this fast track process. aarp for one recommends that social security be excluded from the commission's deliberations. this is what aarp says -- "we urge that social security not be considered in the context of debt reduction. this program does not contribute to the annual deficit and its

long-term solvency can be resolved by relatively modest adjustments if they are made sooner rather than later." qption the national committee to promote and protect social security and medicare also focused on social security, arguing that it is inappropriate for such a commission. here's what they wrote -- "incorporating social security into such a commission would signal to america's seniors that the president is willing and even eager to cut social security benefits. ultimately, older americans will accept changes in social security only if they have a voice in the decision and feel confident that changes are solely for the purpose of improving and strengthening the program. for this reason, social security solvency should not be taken up in the context of a fiscal commission. a consortium of groups from the afl-cio to common cause to now

once again focus on our problems with allowing the budget commission to change social security, and here's what they wrote -- "an american public that only recently rejected privatization of social security will undoubtedly be suspicious of a process that shuts them out of all decisions regarding the future of the retirement system that served them well in the current financial crisis. the idea of excluding social security from fast track processes is not new. congress already excludes social security in the fast track reconciliation process. the text of my amendment is very similar. it's very similar to a provision that appears right now in section 310-g of the congressional budget act. that budget act section prohibits using reconciliation to make cuts in social security. that's in the law today. my amendment would do the same. the same for the fast track procedures in the conrad-gregg amendment. the senate added the budget act section on which my amendment is

patterned to the law in 1985. senator hawkins from florida offered the amendment, and the senate adopted it by voice vote on october 8, 1985. it has been the law for nearly 25 years. let me read from some of the debate that occurred that date in 1985. much of that debate is directly relevant to the amendment that i propose today. senator hawkins explained the purpose of her amendment. she said -- "this amendment states that changes in social security cannot be made in reconciliation." senator hawkins continued, and i quote -- "the whole idea behind removing social security from the unified budget is to make changes in the program based on the needs and constraints of the program itself and not for short-term budgetary reasons. social security is self-financed, has long-term goals. it should not be subject to the

same constraints or programs competing for scarce general revenue funds. if my amendment is not adopted "-- and i continue to quote senator hawkins --" if my amendment is not adopted, it does not mean that changes in social security could never be made. it merely means that if and when changes are made to social security, it would be not in the context of the budget." senator heinz of pennsylvania supported the hawkins amendment. here is what senator heinz said. this is 1985. "i think we first do agree that the legislation needs language that does what the senator from florida suggests, namely to put an extra lock on the door so that no one can say that social security is going to end up in reconciliation. that is the intent." senator heinz continued -- "this language does a very important job by making a point in order against any reconciliation bill that comes to the floor with social security cuts in it."

senator heinz made clear that under the provision that the senate was adding to the budget act, congress could still make changes to social security, just not in the fast track vehicle. senator heinz went on to say -- "the finance committee retains jurisdiction over the programs involved in the social security act and were required for reasons having to do with solvency of social security, reasons of equity having to do with either the taxes or the benefits involving social security or any other reason having to do with -- that we might see fit but not having to do with reconciliation in the budget process, we could work our will as we have in the past under the social security program, but not as part of reconciliation." senator rodman of new hampshire, the cosponsor of the graham-rudman-hollings amendment

spoke in favor. he said -- "the language offered by the senator from florida has one single effect. that effect is any reconciliation taken by the finance committee would have to survive a point of order if it dealt with anything that has to do with old age assistance." and senatordommency -- and senator domenici of the budget committee said -- "this amendment would with specificity say any reconciliation of the bill containing provisions with respect to social security would be subject to a point of order. this is what this amendment does." that's what senators said when they adopted a prohibition on using the fast track reconciliation process to make changes in social security. that's why all those senators supported excluding social security from the fast track reconciliation process. and i argue that all the same arguments apply today as well. let us prevent social security from being cut in a fast track

commission process. let us keep america's commitment to our seniors and urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment to protect social security. i might also say, madam president, social security is not the cause of our deficit problem. social security is running surpluses. for years into the future, social security is going to run surpluses. social security thus reduces the current unified budget deficit. social security is not the problem of our fiscal problems. furthermore, over the long term, social security is growing at the rate of growth of the economy. social security is growing more slowly than health care expenditures. social security is not the primary source of long-term fiscal imbalance. all the more reason, i submit, why my amendment should be adopted. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i rise to strongly support an amendment on the floor that i have

co-authored. i have joined senator thune, senator bennett and many others on this amendment to immediately end the tarp program, the so-called troubled asset relief program, to end that, to wind it down immediately once and for all. again, the amendment is very simple and straightforward. it terminates tarp immediately when this provision is signed into law, and just as importantly, the amendment ensures that all tarp money that is repaid to the federal government goes to debt reduction, as clearly intended under the law under the original language for the tarp program. madam president, i have long fought for this termination. first of all, i had grave, grave reservations about tarp from the beginning, and i voted against that proposal, and looking back, i don't think it's at all clear

that that was necessary to avert some impending disaster. looking at the last year, i think it's perfectly clear that tarp has become a slush fund and has led to all sorts of continuing spending abuses. because of those concerns from the very beginning, i have been working to end the tarp program. on january 5 of this year, i offered the resolution of disapproval to try to block the release of the second half of tarp funds, the second second $350 billion. on april 2, 2009, i offered an amendment to the budget to rescind unspent tarp funds and end it then. on april 30 of last year, i offered an amendment to s. 896 to remove any obstacles to the repayment of tarp funds, because at that time the bank regulators and the department of treasury

were forcing in some cases financial institutions to actually keep their tarp money and not repay it back to the taxpayer sooner rather than later. on august 6 of last year, i offered an amendment to h.r. 3435, a bill which provided extra money for the cash for clunkers program to end tarp on a date certain, namely the end of last year. unfortunately, those efforts failed, but those efforts picked up steam and support every step of the way, and certainly they helped illustrate and recent discussion and debate and elections i think help illustrate that the american people want to end tarp, want to end too big to fail and get back to our normal economic rules grounded in the free market. now, why should we end the tarp program? first of all, madam president,

in the original bill, the end date to the tarp program was supposed to be december 31 of last year. that was the normal end date. now, last december, the secretary of the treasury under authority he had on his own under the language of the bill extended the tarp program for almost another year. i believe that was the wrong decision, unjustified, and i believe we should act to stick by the original end date and end the tarp program immediately. madam president, i don't think there is anyone on this floor or around the country who can really argue that we need a continuation of the tarp program because our financial system is in some imminent danger. there is no imminent danger out there. hopefully that won't develop,

but clearly it does not exist now. secondly, madam president, the right response to future failures is not to purpose taxpayer money without limit to individual institutions. the right response is to end too big to fail and to have an orderly resolution regime. and madam president, that's exactly what i'm working on with democrats, with other republicans on the banking committee to pass regulatory reform, including an orderly resolution regime to end too big to fail. and then the third reason we need to end the tarp program, madam president, is it has become in the last year a pure political slush fund to spend on whatever the political whim of the moment is. it was never executed to achieve its original purpose.

tarp stands for troubled asset relief program, and yet ironically that's about the only thing tarp funds have never been used for, the actual purchase of troubled assets. from the very beginning, just after it was named the troubled asset relief program, it's been used for everything else under the sun. first, pumping money directly into specific megafinancial institutions. then pumping money directly into the auto companies. and clearly the car companies are not -- banks or financial organizations, they were never intended to be included under the tarp program. and since then, during 2009, the proposals to use tarp money as just a pot of money to spend at everyone's political whim have gone and on and. there have been proposals to use tarp money to fund highway

projects. they have proposals right now to use tarp money for a new jobs program. there are proposals at least on the house side to start a brand-new housing program funded by the tarp assets. now, perhaps we should do new activity regarding highway construction, job creation, housing, but we should not use the tarp program as a political grab bag, a slush fund to pay for that and whatever else is the whim of the majority in congress. that's a clear abuse of the program and it's a clear ongoing threat if tarp is allowed to exist. if we go back to the origination of tarp and discussions and talks made at the time, it's clear that then senator obama, then presidential candidate obama pledged to the american people tarp would only be used

for certain purposes and every penny would be repaid to the taxpayer. on okay 1, 2008, then-senator obama, then presidential candidate obama clearly spelled out his conditions that he required to support tarp. and he said -- quote -- "if the american taxpayers are financing this solution, then they have to be treated like investors, they should get every penny of their tax dollars back once the economy recovers." now, i don't think there's any mistaking the law or the president's comments, but because he didn't want to be misunderstood, he didn't want to communicate in any sort of vague way, he reiterated that and he said, in addition -- quote -- "every penny of which will go directly back to the american people." the problem is, that's not what's happening and every mon

month, every week, every day that the tarp program continues to exist, raids on the slush fund, raids on tarp, bright new ideas to spend the money so that they'll never be returned to the taxpayer abound. and, unfortunately, since he -- since he explained his initial conditions for supporting the tarp program, the president has acted in a wholesale different way. he's supported tarp money going to the car companies, which was never intended under the original bill. he supported these new ideas coming out of liberals in the house and senate to use tarp money for highway construction or a new jobs program or a new housing program, which was never intended under the original bi bill. we need to get back to the president's original promise to treat the american taxpayer like

the investors that they are, to honor their funds, to protect their funds and to get all of that money returned to the american taxpayer. i find it pretty ironic that in the last few weeks, the president has bashed big banks and proposed a big, new tax against big financial institutions yet at the same time he wants to continue tarp and he wants to continue the ability to give those same big financial institutions taxpayer dollars virtually without limit. why don't we start, mr. president, members of the senate, why don't we start on the path to fiscal responsibility by at least not showering those big financial institutions with more taxpayer dollars. we're out of the crisis. we don't need tarp. let's end it, end it immediately, wind it down. so again, madam president, i

urge all of my colleagues, democrats, republicans, to honor the president's honduran initias back in the fall of 2008 about what tarp was supposed to be about and how all of the money should be repaid to the taxpayer. let's honor those words. let's honor the initial promises about tarp, and let's end it immediately, since the crisis has passed, and ensure that all the money as it's repaid over time goes back to the american taxpayer by reducing debt. let's stop this continuing threat that tarp is just used as a political slush fund to fund spending programs and ideas at the whim of the majority of congress as it develops week to week and let's return that money to the american taxpayer, let's reduce the debt, let's reduce the deficit. thank you, madam president.

i yield back my time. mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i have further correspondence which i'd like to read into the record with respect to my amendment which is pending and also with respect to statements by organizations who have essentially opposed the conrad-gregg amendment. the first is from the leadership council of aging organizations and it's entitled "a proposed bipartisan task force for responsible fiscal action." and it says, "dear representative: the leadership council of aging organizations, lcao, is a coalition of national not-for-profit organizations focused on the well-being of america's 87 million older adults. today we write to you and your colleagues regarding recent efforts to create a commission

that would force changes to entitlement programs, among other things, through the use of a congressional fast-track procedure. we firmly believe that congress, through its regular legislative process, is best suited to consider and address any changes to these programs. while we have additional concerns regarding the use of such a commission for medicaid, medicaid -- medicare, medicaid, federal and military and civilian retirement benefits, this letter is directly focused on social security. the lcao will be sending under separate cover a letter devoted to express its concerns with the impact of fast-track commission would have on medicare and medicaid. last month's budget committee hearing on bipartisan process proposals for long-term fiscal stability considered the creation of a commission that would be tasked with addressing rising federal debt by 'closing

the gab between tax revenue coming in and the larger cost of paying for social security, medicare and medicaid benefits. this is a weighty responsibili responsibility, requiring careful review of these critical social programs on which so many depend. but there is no guarantee that the members of this commission would have the necessary expertise to conduct such an intensive review. that's very valid, madam president. how would this commission know how to make those cuts. they don't have expertise on the programs. this would be an outfit that just cuts without having any sense as to how these programs operate and what changes might be made. "our concern" -- quoting this letter -- "is that their recommendations nevertheless will be forced through congress without amendments under extremely short time lines and with no opportunity to debate individual issues or consult with constituents. in addition to our objections about the proposed commission

process, we are concerned that its mission would imply that social security has somehow contributed to the nation's economic woes. social security is not a part of the deficit problem nor is it part of the entitlement crisis. its cost is projected to consume only 6.2% g.d.p. by 2030 and to remain slightly below that level for 50 more years. in fact, the 2009 annual report of the board of trustees pointed out that social security ran a surplus of $180 billion last year and had accumulated a reserve of $2.4 trillion. that's a reserve. that's surplus of $2.4 trillion. the most recent projections of the congressional budget office forecast that social security will continue to pay full benefits until 2043. that is at surplus remaining until at least the year 2043. moreover, social security, with its dependable and guaranteed benefits, is the very program

that helped us most recently avoid a 1930's-style depression. again, i'm reading from the letter from the leadership council of aging organizations. continuing: "even as the banking and financial systems threatened to collapse, social security continued to provide a reliable economic lifeline to millions of children, disabled workers, retired workers and spouses, including widowed and divorced spouses dependent on those benefits. these benefits helped to offset lost earnings and stimulated the economy by maintaining purchasing power. according to a recent study by the national academy of social insurance and the benescen strategy group, nearly 9 in 10 americans say social security is more important than ever as a result of today's economic crisis. social security remains the bedrock of retire security for over 33 million older americans.

on average, households with social security beneficiaries aged 65 and older received about 64% of their income from the program in 2006. 64%. social security administration" -- that's in parenthesis, it gives a reference. the reference is in the letter. "additionally, social security provides a lifeline to 4.1 million children, 7.7 million disabled workers, 2.4 million spouses or divorced spouses of retired workers, and 4.4 million surviving spouses. the importance and value of social security to so many americans demands that proposals to change the program be given the due weight, consideration, and debate from congress that they deserve. with this in mind, the undersigned members of the lcao oppose the creation of fast-track entitlements

commission." let me read some of the signatories to this letter. afl-cio, asme retirees, alliance for retired americans, american association of homes and services for the aging, american society on aging, the association of jewish aging services of north america, b'nai b'rith international, center for medicare advocacy, the gray panthers, international union, united auto workers, aerospace, u.a.w., military officers association of america, national academy of elder law attorneys, national active retired federal employees' association, national alliance for caregiving, national asia-pacific, national association of area agencies on aging, national association of professional geriatric care managers, national caucus and center on black aged inc., national committee to preserve

social security and medicare, national council on aging, national senior citizens law center, the national consumer voice for quality long-term care, owl, voice for midlife and older women, service employees international, seiu, the jewish federations of north america, volunteers of america, wider opportunities for women. i think that letter speaks for itself, madam president, but i do ask that it be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: i might also add that there's another letter i have here. i've referred to it -- i've referred to this organization already but i'll read their letter. this is o.w.l., the voice for midlife and older women. it says, "dear president obama, speaker pelosi, and senate majority leader reid: we urge you to preserve and protect two of the most important and successful government programs in the history of the united states: social security and medicare.

we ask that you resist the pressure by wall street and conservative members of congress to form an undemocratic and unaccountable fast-track deficit commission that would cut these programs that are so crucial to the well-being of the people of our country. social security is not responsible for any part of the deficit. the 2009 annual report of the board of trustees stated that social security ran a surplus of $180 billion last year with a reserve of $2.4 trillion." that's a reserve, $2.4 trillion. "the congressional budget office since august 2009 forecast that the full benefits can continue to be paid until 2043. there's ample time to make the necessary adjustments through the usual legislative process. the best way to get the cost of medicare under control is by reforming the health care syst system, as you are currently trying to do, not by cutting benefits to the millions of people whose health is at stak stake." that's a very important point,

madam president. let me just read it again because it's so true. "the best way to get the cost of medicare under control is by reforming the health care system rather than by cutting benefits to mil millions of people whose health is at stake." continuing the letter, "there are many ways to cut the deficit once our economy has recovered, but in the meantime, social security and medicare provide a measure of economic stability during a time of financial crisis in our communities. as francis perkins said on the 25th anniversary of social security -- quote -- 'we will go forward into the future a stronger nation because of the fact that we have this basic rock of security under all our people.' in 2010, we'll celebrate the 75th anniversary of social security. we urge you to stand firm against the proposal for a fast-track commission that would diminish these two programs that speak so deeply of americans' values. respectfully, o.w.l."

madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. officer the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. hutchison: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator texas. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to have 15 minutes to speak. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quor mrs. hutchison: i ask first to lift the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: and i ask unanimous consent to have up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i rise today to speak in support of the thune amendment, which i cosponsored and would put the brakes on the tarp train wreck. tarp was originally conceived to

purchase toxic assets from banks in order to clean up their balance sheets and provide them the capability and liquidity to begin lending again. at the time, federal reserve bank chairman ben bernanke said that we were facing the most severe financial crisis in the post-world war 2 era. president bush stated that the unprecedented challenges of such a financial crisis required unprecedented response. without, a the american people would face massive job losses, significant erosion in the value of retirement accounts and home values, and a lack of credit available. treasury secretary hank paulson said that unless congress took action, the financial system of our nation and the world would collapse in short order. my constituents said at the time they couldn't get loans to keep their businesses up and running. something needed to be done. secretary paulson proposed an

emergency plan to authorize as much as $700 billion to purchase toxic assets, such as devalued mortgage securities from the financial institutions holding them. it was stated that the plan would restore consumer confidence in the economy, as the treasury would show faith in our financial system by purchasing these assets, managing them while the markets stablized and selling them later. the proceeds from the sale of these assets would then go to pay down to pay down our -- would then go to pay down our national debt. congress proposed the economic stablization act which create the troubled asset relief program called tarp and authorized not $700 billion but $350 billion in federal assistance. a republican and democrat governors associations wrote jointly to ask congress to act immediately on the legislation

to provide economic security to the financial system and stablize the crisis. congress did act in overwhelming majorities. almost immediately, however, the treasury department deviated from the intent of the program and away from the design they told congress they would pursue. it did not purchase toxic assets as planned. instead, the treasury used tarn funds to take -- the tarp us thy used tarp funds. the program poured billions into a.i.g., gm, and chrysler. when the administration asked for the second tranche of $350 billion, i said no and so did many of my colleagues. we have especially seen the misuse of tarp in the capital repayments to the treasury.

since the program began, the treasury has received over $165 billion in paybacks with interest. under the stablization act, proceeds from these pay 13 backs were meant to be used to pay down our national debt. that was a key condition to its approval. in a hearing last november before the banking committee, of which i am a member, i spoke with the assistant secretary of the treasury her be allison regarding the state of the tarp program one year later. secretary allison told us that these repaid funds go directly into the general account of the u.s. treasury to reduce the treasury's funding need, to reduce our debt. yet when i asked him to confirm that the money repaid was no longer part of the total authorization of $700 billion, secretary allison said that when

tarp funds are repaid, headroom is created within the program to provide additional commitments to maintain the $700 billion funding level. thus, as the treasury puts repaid funds back into one pot, it reaches into another for more. basically, recycling the $700 billion. this is not what was promised. it is not what was passed. it is not what was envisioned. and i most certainly never voted to authorize a revolving fund to allow the treasury to remain in our economy definitely. i didn't even vote for $350 billion of this $700 billion that is now becoming a revolving fund. according to the most recent tarp report from the office of financial stability, approximately $545 billion in tarp funds have been committed.

repayments through tarp were over $165 billion. this leaves roughly, with the amount of the $545 billion, which has been paid out, which is about $374 billion. bottom line is, there's roughly $319 billion of unobligated tarp funds, tarp authority. the recent report issued by the congressional oversight panel for tarp stated that although tarp authority ended on october -- ends october 3, 2010, any funds committed by that date but not yet spent can still be spent under tarp past the deadline this. could create an indefinite time period for expenditures through tarp. the amendment offered by senator thune and me and many others would allow us to truly put an end to tarp expansions, and it

would put an end immediately, and it would show taxpayers that congress finally gets it, that we are serious about reducing our nation's skyrocketing debt. this would indeed be the first step for putting our financial house in order. we today can begin the process of lowering this huge debt that our country just in the last year has increased exponentially. we are looking at a bill that would increase our debt to $14 trillion. if we pass the amendment that is before us today, we can cut that back instead of adding to the debt, and that is what we ought to do. and while we're at it, madam president, we need to stop the spending bing that we are on. we need to stop the stimulus package, whatever is not authorized, because that, too, will add to our debt.

and we need to recommit to cut taxes. we need to say, our financial house must get in order. it is time to reauthorize the tax cuts that were put in place that caused our financial stability after 9/11. it is the tax cuts that caused our financial stability. it is lowering the capital gains rate, lowering the dividend rate of taxation. this is what would open our markets and open our ability for businesses to hire people. it would restore consumer confidence. and what about the death tax that will come back in full force next year? people do not know how to plan their giving to their children or giving to their employees and their business because they don't know what congress is going to do, if there is anything congress ought to do, it is stablize our tax system

and make the tax cuts permanent. we need to lower the capital gains and dividends rate permanently. these are funds that have already been taxed. they were taxed when they were earned. they should not be taxed for savings. dividends and capital gains are savings. that's how people plan for their future. we need to recommit today to reorder our financial priorities. we need to get our financial house in order. that means cutting down on the debt, not adding to it; it means cutting spending; and it means making our tax cuts permanent. capital gains and dividend rates should be lowered permanently so that our stock market would be permanently stablized. and we should lower the rate for everyone because the people who can hire people are paying at the the -- will be paying at the highest rates when the rates go

up and that includes schedule "c" corporations. we need to lower capital gains rates, we need to lower the burden on birks we need to lower the burden on families, we need to help people, not hurt people, who are trying to plan for their dpngs retirement. -- for their financial retirement. madam president, we have a chance today to take the first step by saying tarp is going to end. we are not going to expand something that was authorized for an emergency purpose. this emergency purpose should be a commitment of congress. we should not allow the expansion of tarp, and we can take the first step by voting for the thune amendment of which i am a cosponsor. we need to start the process today, madam president, and we can say to the american people that congress is finally listening. many on my side of the aisle have been making these points

day after day after day. we were here almost every day of december, saturdays and sundays included, trying to make the point that people don't want a government takeover of their health care system. now we have, i think, a clear message from the people of massachusetts that they don't like this either. the exit polling showed that 48% of them voted to keep this health care bill from going forward. the rest of them voted to say, stop all of this takeover of government, of so much of our lives, whether it is cap and trade that is going to raise our energy and fuel costs, whether it is letting the tax cuts lapse, which would give us more money for our own families to spend as we wish, not as government wishes, it is stop the growth of big government, it is stop the ending of the death tax for all intents and purse so that we can't pass to our

children the fruits of our labor. and most of all, we have a chance tachance today to say wet going to $14 trillion which is now above 70% of our gross domestic product. this is our debt burden. ness not healthy. the people of massachusetts said get your house in order, congress. get your house in order, mr. president. let's do it. we can take the step today to do it. it is time for congress to listen and to act and to hear the american people, to hear their cry that we must get our house in order for the future of every american and every american's child and every american's grandchild that's what we owe them,

madam president. and i hope we will take the first step with the thune amendment and then the amendment -- or the rejection of the resolution to raise the debt ceiling. and then we can lower taxes permanently, and then we can take to the american people a new agenda that will really create jobs, because the jobs will be in the private sector, not the government sector. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. mr. baucus: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. baucus: madam president, i have seven unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate with the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: madam president, we an anticipate the senator frm north dakota will join us momentarily. pending his arrival, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. conrad: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: i have come to the floor to -- the presiding officer: the senate is in quorum call. mr. conrad: i'd ask proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: madam president, i've come to the floor to discuss an amendment i am offering with senator gregg to create a bipartisan fiscal task

force. the task force would be designed to develop a bipartisan legislative package to address the nation's long-term fiscal imbalances. and there would be a requirement that the package come before congress for a vote. under the rules of the senate, our amendment requires 60 votes to pass. if we do not reach the 60-vote threshold, i will continue to push for the creation of a special process to deal with our debt, and i will fight to ensure that any special process results in legislation that will get a vote in the senate and in the house. we cannot afford another commission whose recommendations sit on a dusty shelf somewhere at the library of congress. i believe our country is at a critical juncture.

we have seen in the previous administration the debt of the united states double. we are on course over the next eight years for at least another doubling of the debt, and already we are reaching precarious levels, record levels, record levels that have never been seen before in this country. madam president, i believe nothing short of the economic future of the country is at stake. i would point to this recent "newsweek" cover from december 7 of last year entitled "how great powers fall: steep debt, slow growth and high spending kill empires. and america could be next." madam president, here's what the article went on to say: "this is how empires decline.

it begins with a debt explosion. it ends with an inexorable reduction in the resources available for the army, navy and air force. if the united states doesn't come up soon with a credible plan to restore the federal budget to balance over the next five to ten years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis could lead to a major weakening of american power." madam president, the process has already begun. as i indicated, in the previous administration the debt doubled. foreign holdings of u.s. debt more than doubled. and we can see the track that we're on. from 2001, the beginning of the bush administration, the debt skyrocketed, and it continues to grow with the economic downturn and the projections from the congressional budget office for the future. in fact, we now estimate that the gross debt of the united

states could reach 114% of the gross domestic product of the united states. that has only been equaled in u.s. history after world war ii. and at that point the debt came down very rapidly. madam president, there is no forecast that shows this debt coming down, and certainly no projection and no forecast that it will come down rapidly. instead, what we have is a forecast by the congressional budget office that the debt will continue to explode. and instead of being 100% of the gross domestic product of the united states, the debt will rise to a level of more than 400% of the gross domestic product of the united states. by any account, that is an unsustainable course. we have had before the budget

committee, the testimony of the head of the congressional budget office saying that the course we're on is clearly unsustainable. we have had the testimony of the head of the general accounting office saying the current course is clearly unsustainable. we have had the testimony of the secretary of the treasury both in the previous administration and this one saying that this trajectory is clearly unsustainable. and we have had the testimony, clear and compelling, by the chairman of the federal reserve that this course is absolutely unsustainable. i have said to my colleagues repeatedly that the debt is the threat. it is something we must face up to. now, we have been through a very sharp economic downturn. in the midst of a sharp economic downturn, you don't raise taxes or cut spending. that would only deepen the recession. in fact, we could have seen this

country plunge into a complete collapse, and we would not have been alone. i think many of us believe that we just narrowly averted a global financial collapse. one reason it was averted is because of actions by this administration and the previous administration and this congress. steps that were taken to provide liquidity to prevent a global collapse. but those steps also added to the deficit and debt. we have to acknowledge that. we have to be very straight with people that those steps were necessary to avert a collapse. but they also contribute to the long-term crisis that we confront, a crisis of a debt growing too rapidly and forecast to reach a level unprecedented in our national history. a debt level that could threaten

the economic security of the united states. how many people have asked me how does this threaten the economic security of the country? well, very simply, this debt is increasingly financed from abroad. in fact, last year 68% of the new debt created by the united states was financed by foreign entities. 68%. china has become now our biggest creditor, and they have signaled publicly and privately that they are increasingly concerned with the fiscal policy of the united states. they are increasingly concerned about the security of their loans to the united states. other countries have expressed concern as well. if those countries decided that they would no longer extend loans to the united states, we would then be very quickly in a

serious situation. it would mean we would have to either cut spending sharply or raise taxes dramatically or raise interest rates in a significant way to attract new borrowing. new lenders. so, madam president, the consequences of a failure to address these issues goes right to the heart of the economic strength of the country. as i said, in the article in "newsweek," they say if the united states doesn't come up soon with a credible plan to restore the federal budget to balance over the next five to ten years, the danger is very real that a debt crisis could lead to a major weakening of american power. madam president, for those who believe there is no crisis and

we can just stay with the status quo, this is a quote from the "national journal" cover story in november. the article was titled, "it's worse than you think." it stated: "simply put, even alarmists may be understating the size of the debt problem, how quickly it will become unbearable and how poorly prepared our political system is to deal with it." madam president, i believe the national journal got it about right. we are on a course here that is clearly unsustainable. virtually every expert says to us that is so. the consequences of a failure to deal with the debt are enormous. they could go right to the heart of the economic strength of the country. so, madam president, senator gregg and i come to the floor with a proposal, a proposal to

have everything on the table, to have a bipartisan commission evaluate various options for dealing with our long-term death threat and to come back with a proposal. but they can only come back if 14 of the 18 members of that commission agree on a future course. a supermajority, a bipartisan majority. and if 14 of the 18 could agree, that plan comes to congress for a vote. members here will decide. this is not outsourcing the responsibility. this is giving an independent commission the responsibility to come up with a plan, but that plan would have to be voted on by members of the senate, members of the house, and under our form hraeurbgs it would require a -- formulation, it would be two* require a

supermajority in both chambers to pass. of course the president would retain his veto powers. he would be able to veto any proposal passed by the senate and the house. so i believe the prerogatives of the senate and the house are preserved. it will require a vote, a supermajority here and in the house, and of course signature by the president. the former chairman of the federal reserve has talked about the urgent need to address the long-term debt situation. this is what he said on december 17 of last year in testimony before the homeland security and governmental affairs committee. and i quote -- "the challenge to contain this threat is more urgent than at any time in our history. our nation has never before had to confront so formidable a fiscal crisis as is now visible just over the horizon."

madam president, i believe the former chairman of the federal reserve has it right. we face an unprecedented threat. never before in our nation's history have we looked forward and seen the prospect, if we continue current policies, of a debt that would equal 400% of the gross domestic product of the united states. that has never ever faced this country. that is a threat where unfamiliar with. -- that is a threat we're unfamiliar with. the response that senator gregg and i have crafted over two years of debate and discussion with many of our colleagues is one that is based on the principle of accountability. all of the task force members would be directly accountable to