quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. ensign: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. ensign: mr. president, i rise today -- or i ask the call of the quorum. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. ensign: ask the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ensign: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ensign: thank you. mr. president, i rise today to speak in reaction to president obama's speech this week outlining what he believes to be in our nation's interest in libya. last week, while i was working in nevada, many of my constituents asked what my thought were -- thoughts were on the military actions that we've taken in libya. my answer to them was simply that i did not believe that the president had outlined a vital u.s. american interest in our engagement in libya, that the united states cannot afford to be the police force of the wor world. this week, with the president's address to the nation, i had hoped that i would hear something to change my mind, or,

better yet, something that would instill confidence about the president's decision, but unfortunately, this address provided the american people with many more questions than answers. president obama left me wondering why any vital u.s. american interest in libya would justify military action. he said refugees would stream into tunisia and egypt, but we often aid refugees without f-15's. he said we needed to preserve the writ of the united nations security council, but he did not explain why the safety of our men and women in uniform should ever be put at the service of that body. he said that we needed to show dictators across the region that they could not use violence to cling to power. but if president obama's policy fails to get rid of qaddafi, that iqaddafi,that -- that is ee lesson they will learn.

the president left me wondering about the definition of military success. he said that our military mission is limited but how do we know when we've hit our limit. is it when qaddafi poses no throat civilians, is it when all his thugs are gone, or is it when qaddafi steps down. this week's racy from president obama makes it -- weak's address from president obama makes it clear to me that we may be headed for a decades-long mission in libya. our military is stretched thin enough as it is. this weekend, the secretary of defense -- this is what secretary of defense gates said. he said that when asked about libya, whether it's in our vital interest, he said, "no, i don't think libya's a vital interest for the united states." so what are we doing? well, i understand that the president may sincerely want to save lives in libya, but our

country cannot afford to be the police force for the rest of the world. we did not step in when there were genocide in darfur. and, as a matter of fact, there's a story today -- and i would ask unanimous consent to have this story put into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. ensign: the headline says: darfurese feel betrayed by libya no-fly zone." see, we didn't step in in darfur. we also didn't help the people in rwanda. the last time we did try to police a situation such as this was in somalia, and we all know how that ended. that's probably why we haven't intervened in the ivory coast, even though there are more than a million people who have fled their homes and hundreds of thousands have crossed into neighboring countries. other nations, such as france, wanted to take the lead on addressing the libya situation. i believe we should have allowed them to do so.

the president's address made it clear to me that our military action in libya is less about humanitarianism and more about realizing a multilateralist fantasy. you see, while secretary clinton has continued to refer to senate resolution 85 as a senate endorsement of the president's establishment of a no-fly zone, i'd like to point out to the american people to this talking point is very misleading. this is what she said. she said, "the united states senate called for a no-fly zone in a resolution that it passed, i think," and she said, "on march the 1st, and that the mission is on the bing of having been accomplished. and there was a lot of congressional support to do something." well, this senate resolution had the same amount of consideration that a bill to name a post office has. this bill was hot-lined. there was no debate allowed on the issue, no legislative language provided to consider,

and there was no vote. senate res. 85 described a no-fly zone as a possible course of action for the u.n. security council's consideration. it did not instruct the u.s. ambassador to the united nations to take action, let alone authorize a military operation. using the hot-line process for this resolution as a grerl endorse -- as a congressional endorsement for the president's policy is simply not an adequate use of congress' role in authorizing military action. the administration unilaterally developed, planned, executed its no-fly zone policy. the president consulted with united nations, he consulted with nato, he consulted with the arab league, but he didn't consult with the body that is mandated under our laws and our discussionthat's the united states -- and our discussion, and that's the united states congress. there was no congressional approval or oversight of this military commitment.

the senate resolution simply does not authorize or endorse the use of force. it urges a multilateral body to consider a no-fly zone as a possible course of action. this is not the legal equivalent of an authorization to use force. this is not the political equivalent of that authorizati authorization. so what is it? i believe it's a disrespectful checking of the box for congressional approval by the administration's unilateral action. as secretary gates has stated, there is not a vital interest for our nation in libya, which now means that now we are engaged there. the united states is at risk of mission creep and a possibility of a take 2 of what happened in somalia. before our military intervention, u.s. interests in libya were minimal. our intervention has

overinflated our interest in libya's civil war. if qadhafi stays in power -- and there's many who believe we will -- and he continues to fire on innocent civilians, demands for u.s. military capabilities will go up. this sounds strikingly similar to what happened in somalia. furthermore, this engagement has explicitly announced our support for the rebel cause and yet we don't even know who or what these rebels are. what their ideology is. president obama's military strategy risked damaging our already shaky credibility in this unstable region of the world, and even with complete military success, president obama's policy may appear to fail because he has disconnected military means, a no-fly zone, from his staj i can -- strategic ends, qadhafi's removal. the obama administration has confused our priorities in the middle east.

operations in libya divert our focus from unstable situations in syria, yemen, and iran, all of whom are much more important for the united states interests. operations in libya muddle our interests and undermine our ability to lead across the region. and if tur oil in lib a-- and if turmoil in libya calls for a no-fly zone, are we prepared to make the same commitments in syria and iran, where we have far greater strategic interests? if not, what kind of a message does this send to the reformers in those countries? last year, if you recall, when there was an uprising in iran, the president basically said, "hand's off. it's not in our interest. we can't do anything about it." what kind have a message does that send? some have argued that oil is the underlying reason for our engagement in libya. whether this is the case or not, the perception is there. and instead of lessen our

depend -- lessening our dependence on dangerous foreign oil, this administration has steadfastly refused to let the united states of america to tap into its own oil reserves. in alaska alone, there are three places up in alaska that would supply the united states with 65 years worth of what we import from the persian gulf. 65 years worth of oil that we import from the persian gulf is in just three areas in alaska. unfortunately, as strongly as i believe in renewable energy, it's going to take us 30 to 40 years for renewable energy infrastructure to be up and running enough to start contributing significantly to our nation's energy supply. which is why we need to act to get more oil, natural gas, and other types of american fossil fuels into our energy supply today. i would argue that there is a vital u.s.-american interest t to -- u.s. american interest to harvest our own energy or we risk in engaging in military

conflict every time those in the middle east become unstable. mr. president, this is absolutely a critical debate. there are legitimate differences on both sides of this debate, but this is a debate the congress should be willing to have, whether the president should have consulted and whether this is in our vital u.s. american interest to go forward. mr. president, i yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i ask consent to vitiate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: and i ask consent to divide equally the remaining amount of morning business time.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: the senator from new york and i are on the floor to introduce legislation, which he will do in just a moment that will help to make the senate a more effective place to deal with the big issues facing our country, such as the debt, and our national defense and other issues. this is the result of discussions that we have had over the last several months with many members of the senate on both sides of the aisle. it began with some reforms in the senate rules, which included eliminating the secret hold, so-called, and -- and doing other steps. and it's the culmination of work by a number of senators on both sides of the aisle including senator lieberman, senator collins, the leader, senator reid, and senator mcconnell, when they were whips, senator schumer and i and others. a bipartisan breakfast, which we had a couple of years ago and it

came down to the question, how many confirmations should the senate have? how many confirmations are enough confirmations? is it in the public interest to staff -- to allow a new president, whether democratic or republican, to staff the government promptly. and is it in the public interest to -- to get rid of this syndrome, which is established in washington, which i call innocent until nominated, where we invite a distinguished person to come in and run through a gauntlet that makes him or her out to be a criminal for make some mistake in the process of being confirmed. so we've worked together on that and we've come up with legislation that senator schumer will introduce on behalf of both of us, on behalf of the leader, senator reid and senator mcconnell, and on behalf of senator lieberman and senator collins. this legislation would answer the question, how many

confirmations are enough confirmations by reducing the number -- by dealing with about -- from 31,400 -- from about 1,400 to 1,000. that is still more confirmations than existed when president clinton was president of the united states. it's four times as many confirmations as existed when president kennedy was president of the united states. in other words, like many things in government, the number of confirmations has grown over time. we've ended up confirming people we have no business confirming. people who p.r. officers, people who are financial information people and we've made it difficult for the government to be staffed. is it in our interest, the citizens to staff the government to -- to staff the government promptly yes, i think it is. we created this phenomenon where -- for example, when president obama came in, secretary geithner, the treasury secretary was sitting over there almost home alone during the

middle of the worst recession since the great depression. according to news accounts, he didn't have much help. the key vacant positions with assistant secretary for tax policy, the duty assistant for tax policy, the deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis, deputy assistant secretary for tax tariff and trade policy and a variety of others. that wasn't helping any of us whether or not we agreed with secretary night ner. a president should be able to promptly staff the government and we in the senate should have procedures that give us a chance to review those nominees and offer our advice and consent and confirm or reject those nominees in a reasonable period of time. if we're spending our time dealing with junior officials or p.r. officers, we spending less time with the assistant secretary of tax policy on whom we should be focusing a lot of time and to whom we should be asking a lot of questions.

and then this business of what i call innocent until nominated. all of us know that this exists. and it -- and it really exists sloppiness on our part. both in the legislative branch and the executive branch. if you're asked to serve in the federal government, and i know this because i was asked by the first president bush, you fill out forms. well, there are many forms. there are many forms in the executive branch. they have different definitions. for example, income. so if you were to carelessly fill out the same definition of income in this form as another form, you might have been incorrect on one of the forms and then someone might say you were telling a lie and weren't fit to -- to -- to serve. that's been caused by others, including me, being innocent until nominated. i remember when ron kirk was nominated by president obama, the former mayor of dallas, to be the trade representative. there was some issue about whether he had properly reported

a charitable contribution -- a speech fee that he gave to charity. well, what difference did it make in terms of his overall fitness to serve? it held him up. it embarrassed him. it was -- it was not a -- relevant to -- to the inquiry. so the legislation that we have will do the following: it will take 400 positions. half of them will be eliminated as senate confirmations. these are the ones that we don't need to spend time on. the other half will come directly to the desk and -- and unless an individual senator says, send it on to committee, it will be expedited. that still leaves us with 1,000 senate confirmations that we can have. 1,000 hostage that's we can take. -- hostages that we can take. that's more hostages, four times as many under president kennedy. plenty of hostages for any senator to make hisser her point

if that's -- his or her point if that's what we seek to do. and the second thing it would do is setup a process where by an executive branch commission would review the various forms that nominees are expected to fill out, try to have a single smart form in the executive branch, consult with the committees of congress to see if we can do the same thing with our forms, and make it possible that we can get all the information we want without unnecessarily subjecting nominees to harassment or trickery just because they're not wise enough to fill out different forms with different definitions. i think it is a substantial step forward. it may not sound like much to those watching the united states senate, but let me just say, that both of our leaders, reid and mcconnell, have said they tried and couldn't get it done. senator mcconnell -- senator lieber mand senator collins -- lieberman and senator collins have tried and they couldn't get it done. i worked with senator lieberman

two years ago, we couldn't get it done. what has happened this time is as a result of the discussion that we had earlier in the year about making the senate a more effective place to work, with the full support of the leaders, reid and mcconnell, with the full support of senator -- of senator lieberman and senator collins and with the good work of senator schumer, we've come up with a consensus piece of legislation which has broad bipartisan support, both sides of the aisle, including many chairman and ranking members of the committee who -- who you'd think might be the first one to object still leaves the senate with the prerogatives it ought to have in terms of reviewing presidential nominees and separates out those who take our time away from the more important things that we ought to be doing. i want to thank the senator from new york for the way he's worked on this. he's been constructive and direct and helpful. i thank the leaders for their support. i hope that the committees will rapidly consider the legislation that senator schumer will offer

on our behalf. and i hope that it will show that we can take a -- another small step in making the senate a more effective place to work. i ask consent to include the following -- following my remarks remarks that i made earlier on this subject and prior to that, i'd like to list the presidential appointments no longer requiring senate confirmation. there are about 200 of those and privileged nominations, those are the ones that will be expedited unless a single senator decides that he or she wants to have this nominee sent to the committee, and that's about another 200. i thank the president and i notice that the senator from new york is also on the floor and i thank him for his work on. this -- on this. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to thank my colleague from tennessee.

he's been a great partner in this. it was his impetus that brought us here. he thought about this long and hard and worked on it previously and, as usual, it's been a pleasure to work with senator alexander on the rules committee or anywhere else. and i thank him for really spearheading. this i also want to thank the two leaders, senator reid, of course, my friend and so proud to work under his leadership and senator mcconnell. and i have to say this, senator mcconnell and i often, we have our differences, but he has on all of these issues of moving the senate forward been operating in good faith and his support of this legislation has allowed us to get here. and, finally, our -- the committee chair, senator lieberman, as well as ranking member collins, have been equal partners in this legislation and had it -- and it will go through their committee. finally i want to thank all the committee chairs.

and they have been very understanding of the need to do this. obviously committee chairs might say i want to have before my committee every single person, but, ultimately, they've realized it slows down the senate. while we're introducing the legislation today, a number of committee chairs on our side probably with the consent of their ranking members have come to me and said there might be other positions they want to add to the list, than would be a good idea. we've -- and that would be a good idea. we've tried to be careful here. we don't want to step on any toes or prerogatives in the past when this legislation was attempted, people said, well, just -- i don't want this one, i don't want that one. so we were fairly minimal. it will have a real effect on the senate, as close as to a third of the appointments. there may be some committees who say i don't need to chair, the committee on which i chair and ranking member don't need to approve these five or six more, add them to their lists, we hope that the committee chairs will

do that before the bill is considered. it will be considered by senator lieberman's committee and they can make such additions. let me say this about the process. one of the most important duties of the united states senate is the constitutional advise and consent power. we were careful to balance this interest with the importance of making the confirmation process more efficient. not only for the benefit of the senate, but as well for the benefit of the administration, its agencies and as senator alexander so aptly pointed out, for those individuals who are nominated as well. the senate was designed to be a thoughtful and deliberative boat bode, but the confirmation -- body, but the confirmation process has been gridlocked. the american public is harmed when we are not able to get people confirmed to positions in a timely manner. all of these positions tend to be noncontroversial and more closely resemble appointments made without senate approval.

the legislation consists of a stand alone bill, the presidential appointment efficiency and streamlining act and a resolution and as senator alexander touched on, the continued alone bill will eliminate from the senate confirmation 200 executive nomination positionings and nearly 3,000 additional officer corps positions. the resolution will create standing order that will strea streamline an order of part-time board members. we intend to move both of these pieces together in an effort to reform the process. these two pieces will remove or streamline, as i mentioned, nearly one-third of currently confirmable senate appointments. the act will remove the need for confirmation for several categories of positions, including legislative and public affairs positions, chief financial officers, information technology administrators, internal management and administrative positions, and deputies or nonpolicy-related assistant secretaries who report

to individuals who are senate confirmable. removing these positions from senate confirmation will allow a new administration to set -- to be set up with more efficiency and speed, thus making government work better for the people. in addition, we've removed thousands of positions from public health service officer corps and the national oceanic and atmosphere administration corps from the process. they're noncontroversial. their removal will prevent the possibility of further gridlock. the act will also create a working group, because this is a work in progress since senator alexander has been working on this longer than i have or most of us in this body, that will provide recommendations on the process to further streamline the appointment and confirmation process. the group will make recommendations to the president and the senate about streamlining the paperwork process for nominees by creating a single searchable electronic smart forum and will also conduct a review of the current background investigation requirements.

senators lieberman and collins held a hearing on the confirmation process last month in the homeland security and government affairs committee which will have jurisdiction over the piece and the hearing was extremely helpful to our working group efforts an further highlighted the fact that our system of dealing with executive nominees needs reform. the resolution piece of the package will create a streamline process for part-time positions on boards or commissions. a majority of these boards require political balance. a certain number of democrats, a certain number of republicans. we're doing this rather than eliminating senate consideration in its entirety in order to ensure that these politically balanced boards remain bipartisan. this was actually a recommendation, i believe, of senator mcconnell and i think it was an apt one. the resolution creates a standing order that will provide for an expedited process for this class of privileged nominations by creating new pages on the executive calendar. when the senate receives a nomination from the president, it'll be placed on a new section

on the executive calendar called "privilege nomination information requested" while the nominee submitted paperwork to the committee of jurisdiction. when the chair of that committee certifies all committee questionnaires have been received from the nominee, the nomination will be placed on the privileged nominee information received section of the executive calendar and as senator alexander mentioned, after ten session days, the nomination is on the full executive calendar and will wait the full senate with the presumption that these will be passed by unanimous consent. so any single senator can 0 object, although we doubt in almost every case that any will. from the beginning of the process until the expiration of ten session days, any member can request on his or her own behalf or on behalf of my identified member that the nomination be referred to committee. we think that incorporating this safe safeguard is in line with our elimination of secret holds

earlier this year. the presumption for these part-time position positions are that they'll approve the nomination will unanimous consent and not be held up as part of other battles or ledge or whatever else. the resolution would come beneficiary this resolution would come before the rules committee, which senator alexander and i lead and i would thoap take action ton very soon. we're dhaft this package will eliminate many of the delays in the current confirmation process, the detrimental to the efficient operation of government and to the efforts to recruit the most qualified people to these federal jobs. the package we have proposed today is the first step in protecting american people's interest in having a newly elected president move qulik and efficiently to set up a government and before i yield the floor, i had a note that you, mr. president, in your impetus to reform the senate, have claimed some credit for this move as w well. with that, i yield the floor and will be introducing the

legislation with senator alexander, myself, senator reid, mcconnell, collins, lieberman and i think eight or nine other cosponsors as we will, bipartisan, this -- as well, bipartisan, this afternoon. i yield the floor. i have 11 unanimous consent requests for committees to immediate during today's session of the senate. they have been a proved by the minority and majority 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, so ordered. mr. schumer: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. warner: i ask that the proceedings of the quorumming dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president, i come back to the floor again one more time again today to honor another great federal employee. i know the presiding officer and i and so many of our colleagues recognize that literally the state of new mexico and the commonwealth of virginia here in washington hav have countless federal employees who do great things in terms of public service and don't often get the recognition that they deserve. and as we debate the balance of this year's budget and think

about the incredible issues in front of us in terms of our debt and deficit, issues that have to be confronted, we also sometimes have to remember that our actions or failure to act have enormous consequences, consequences on the people who defend our country, protect our homeland, make sure that the basic operations of government work, whether it's making sure our federal parks are open, making sure that these folks here in washington, the federal police, are on the job, and our sometimes failure to agree or failure to come together on a particularly predictability for this fiscal year has affected their lives. that's not the subject of my purpose of rising today, but i do think this is important to bear that in mind, as i continue the tradition that was started by senator ted kaufman last year coming to the floor on a regular basis and honoring federal

employees. time and again i've seen how the skills and dedication of federal workers has yielded groundbreaking benefits for our country. today i want to highlight a federal worker who is at the forefront of modern technology. joshua beanfanning is a physicist at the national institute for standards in technology. he created a new method of transmitting encristed messages in a 100% secure way by using quantum physics. i know the presiding officer is a an expert in kwan fum physics and i unfortunately am not. but since there are so many operations in the great state of new mexico, he i know is very familiar with the subject. but i still have a great deal to learn. but my understanding is in practical terms, this means that mr. beanfang has -- it means that message interceptors will

be unable to capture sensitive information, critically important to protecting the homeland. prior to mr. beanfang's breakthrough, quantum cryptology was thought to be a largely spermexperimental means of transmission. but he was able to both secure messages and speed up their delivery. in fact, this technology has set world speed records in the quantum cryptographic field. i know the presiding officer probably knows what these speed records are. i don't. particularly with his background in quantum physics, makes him understand that. but i think it is a fairly remarkable achievement. without a doubt, mr. beanfang's discovery will be greatly important to our national security, commerce, and equally important, privacy of medical records. his work also demonstrates the diversity of our federal workforce. while we may have our fair share

of bureaucrats, there are literally hundreds, if not thus thousands, of scientists and researchers doing cutting-edge work within the federal government in applying their intellect to benefit the american people. i hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating joshua beanfang as we will as those at the national institute for standards and technology on their success which will no doubt aid americans in the years to come. thank you, mr. president. and with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. warch warn i ask that the proceedings of the quorum be dispensed with. officethe presiding officer: ofr without objection. mr. warner: ask that the proceedings of the quorum call be equally divided between both sides between now and 2:00 p.m. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. warner: mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. barrasso: i thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to engage in a colloquy with one of my colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come today to the floor as a physician who's practiced medicine in wyoming for a quarter century as an orthopedic surgeon, taking care of families across the state and provide a physician's second opinion with what happened with this health care law that the people of this country are having to deal with and having to live under. as nancy pelosi said, first we have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it. well, the american people are finding out what's in it and they, frankly, aren't happy with it. they don't like it. they don't want to live with it. they don't want to live under it. a year ago when we started this discussion what we heard and what i believed as a physician is what people are looking for

in this country is the care they need from the doctor they want at a cost they can afford. and this 2,700 -- 2,700-page bill that's costing trillions of dollars doesn't really deliver that at all. it's -- to me, it is a bill that makes it harder to create jobs. it increases the cost of care. it eliminates choice. it's raising taxes, it's locking 16 million americans into a broken medicaid system. and it's taking $500 billion from our seniors not to help take care of medicare to solve that problem, but to start a whole new government entitlement program. and visiting with one of my colleagues, dr. chris keggie, who i trained under in my residency program, just the impact on those seniors who need hip replacements and as surgeons we know when you take that kind of money way from medicare, it doesn't make it easy for seniors

to get the care they need. two courts have ruled, one in virginia, one in florida, that this health care law and the mandate, the mandate that everyone in the country must buy or pay government-approved health insurance, two courts have ruled that unconstitutional. well, the states are at an impasse knowing what to do. how do they react? when will the supreme court decide? what kind of resources must those states commit? and that's why i'm so delighted to be joined by my colleague, senator hutchison, from texas on the floor, because i think she has the right answer, mr. president. she has introduced, as an amendment to the bill that we're discussing today on the floor, the save our states act. it's -- it's an amendment to suspend implementing these health reform measures until the lawsuits have been settled and we actually get a clear understanding of the because i believe that this law

unconstitutional. and so i would ask my colleague, and i know -- i note that there are quite a few senates that have cosponsored this legislation, if she would perhaps share as part of a second opinion your thoughts and -- and what the states have to live under now and what -- what rights and opportunities the states should have. mrs. hutchison: well, i -- mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i certainly appreciate what senator barrasso from wyoming does for us on a regular basis and that is as one of the few physicians in our body to -- to be exact, and he is one of the two, he tells us the things that are happening in this health care reform bill that are hurting our health care system, hurting the quality of health care in our country and at a time when we need to assure senior citizens that the

medicare cuts will not take effect. and as we certainly want our small businesses to hire people rather than stop at 50 because then they're going to start getting fines for not giving the government-prescribed health care that is in the health care reform act that was passed last year and so what i'm doing in -- in my amendment -- my amendment is one of those pending in the bill that is before us is saying, stop. we have now had two courts -- two federal courts from -- one from virginia, one from florida that have said this law is unconstitutional. and, yet, the administration is continuing to implement the law even though it has certainly now been called into question. i am most affected by the number of states that are having to do the same thing. most of our state legislatures

are in session right now. every one of them -- actually i think approximately 44 states out of 50 have budget shortfalls. and, yet, our states are having to spend millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to implement a law that maybe declared unconstitutional. some states have said we're not going to implement. but if they say that, then they are going to be in jeopardy when they're not prepared if the law is constitutional and they will be paying late fees and fines for not implementing during this kind of time when we're in limbo. some states are saying, well, we're going to go ahead and implement, but we have a budget shortfall and we would really like to not be required to implement a law that may be void and we're spending millions of

dollars when we really need that money for education, frankly, or medicaid. so my amendment just says we will stop any further implementation of this law until we know the final court opinion has been rendered by the supreme court of the united states whether or not the law is valid. that's it. that's it. simple, clear. we will just let every state know and have a level playing field that you do not have to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars that are now being spent on implementation unless we know the supreme court has said the law is valid. i have 36 cosponsors of my amendment, including the senator from wyoming, who is one of our two physicians in the senate. and i think that we will have a large support because i'm

getting letters from organizations. i got a letter from the group that has been formed to say, we really need to start over on this health care reform bill. and these are people who represent the employers of america. the employers who want to be able to give their employees the health care coverage that they can afford right now. it may not be the government-prescribed health care, but many are trying to do it. and the groups that have signed this letter supporting my amendment to say stop implementation now are the associated builders and contractors, the associated general contractors, the electrical contractors, the food service distributors, the international franchisees, the national association of manufacturers, the national association of wholesale

distributors, the national retail federation, the small business and entrepreneurship council, the united states chamber of commerce, and the independent women's voice. the 60-plus association. these are the groups that are saying, let's stop the upheaval that this has caused in our country and let's wait and see what the supreme court says before we have the outlays of millions of dollars. and what -- and most certainly the small businesses that are not increasing their employment because they are so concerned about the implications of this health care reform bill. let me just give the senator from wyoming an example from my home state of corpus christi. a small business in corpus christi, texas, has 34 employees. the cheapest option that they have for their health insurance

renewal is 44% more than their insurance just last year. they have just days to decide whether they can continue to offer their employees health insurance. now, this is in anticipation of the health care reform bill going into effect and causing these employers to have to meet these new mandates. the insurance companies are already rachetting up their insurance premiums in anticipation of this law. this is one of the key reasons that we need to stop the implementation until we know if this law is valid. so that our businesses will have the freedom to provide affordable health care coverage to their employees. so, mr. president, i thank the senator from wyoming for coming in with his second opinion because we know that he has

unique experience working with our health care system and i want to make sure that we don't do what the physician motto is, and that is harm when we haven't thought it through and we don't have all the ramifications. first do no harm. that's what the motto is. it's simple and clear, and i think we need to stop implementing this bill until the supreme court has ruled on its constitutionality. thank you, mr. president. and i thank the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, just to follow on that. i'm -- i'm so pleased to be -- to be a cosponsor, original cosponsor of save our states act. states are very concerned. as i heard my colleague from texas say, there are 44 states are in the red right now. and when you hear the complaints from governors of both parties, they are both having to live under the -- this law, have

great concerns. some states, as my colleague from texas knows, have actually applied for waivers so they don't have to live under the constraints of the law. the state of maine has been given a waiver, 2.5 million americans have been given waivers by the secretary of health and human service. many of those are union workers who actually supported the law, but when they found out what this law was going to cost, as the example you have just given from corpus christi, they say, we can't live under this. and, yet, to have to be forced to go ahead and put this expense forward and pay for this at a time of huge financial challenges for our states, it just seems the save our states act is a racial, logical, commonsense way to deal with this. now, i'm going to be home in wyoming again this weekend, very likely at a health care in warland, wyoming, visiting with people from the communities. health fairs are ways for people

to get low-cost health screenings, because we know that early prevention and then early detection of problem is a way to help keep down the cost of health care. those are things that work. we need to repeal and replace this health care law with things that are commonsense solution that's work. of course allow people to make it legal for them to buy insurance across state lines. give people individual incentives to -- to stay healthy. allow people who buy their health insurance individually to get the same tax breaks as the big companies get. deal with the lawsuit abuse that -- that doctors will tell you impacts on the way they practice, raises the cost of care. there are so many things we need to do and that is why, mr. president, i come to the floor again today with a doctor's second opinion on the health care law saying it is time to repeal and replace this health care law and replace it with something that works for the american people. this law that we have passed now in the books, one that i believe

is unconstitutional and one that the save our states act will help our states deal with is -- is a way that i think will help the health care of americans who are struggling at this time to dealing with the -- the onerous requirements that they see coming at them under the president's new health care law. and with that, mr. president, thank you, and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. landrieu: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana is recognized. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to extend -- i'm sorry. let me ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent for the period of morning business to be extended until 3:00 p.m. with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designating designees, with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i really appreciate everyone's cooperation in trying to help us move the sbir bill through the senate this week. it is a very important bill, and hopefully we can get back on that bill efficientlily this afternoon as the leaders are negotiating with the amendments that are pending or those amendments filed against the bill. but i see at this time the senator from maryland who is on the floor, wanted to say just a minute about the bill, and then senator boxer came down to speak about an amendment. senator vitter is also here, and i know that he'd like to be recognized in just a few minutes as we will. -- as well. then we'll just alternate back and forth in morning business. there is no consent agreement at this point but we'll try to be fair to the members to move back and forth through the afternoon until 3:00. mrs. boxer: could i ask the senator to yield for a question? ms. landrieu: you would go after senator cardin. mrs. boxer: okay. i just want to clarify that.

ms. landrieu: then senator vitter. mrs. boxer: i have a pressing event after. i just wanted to make sure. ms. landrieu: that would be wonderful. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: i really want to get back a little bit on the sbir bill itself and compliment senator landrieu, the chairman of the small business committee, the senator snowe, the ranking republican member. this is very important bill and i think it's important that we get back to it and that we deal with amendments that are relevant to this legislation and move it forward. we've been on this bill now for a period of time. it's time to move o. and i would just -- it's time to move on. and i would just urge my colleagues, let's take up the amendments that are relevant to this legislation, let's move it forward. this is bipartisan legislation, passed our committee by an overwhelming vote of democrats and republicans. it's a bill that will help create jobs in our community. we are talking about how america, as the president said, can outeducate, outinnovate and outbuild our competitors.

we've got to outinnovate. the sbir bill makes it easier for small companies to be able to innovate for america, to help this nation grow, to help our economy grow. it's about jobs expin ovation. the sbir program it's about jobs and innovation. the sbir program provides funds for small-tech firms to be able to innovate and grow and create jobs and for america to continue to lead the world in innovation. that's what this bill's about. it provides predictability so that if you're going to go into a business, you know that the program's going to be here, to give the permanency of reauthorization. it provides a greater share of the pie for our smaller companies. why? because that's where we're going to get the job growth in america and that's where innovation is going to come from. this is commonsense legislation that we need to move forward. i know everybody has their particular amendment that they want to get on that's -- that's really not related at all to this bill. let's -- let's do our small businesses a favor. let's do the american economy a

favor. let's do something that can really help not only create jobs but move america forward in innovation and let's get this bill moving for the sake of our economy. and with that, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i want to thank my colleagues. i need to tell the american people and my colleagues who haven't been following this important debate on a really good bill, i'm so grateful to the senator from louisiana for this bill, senator landrieu. but unfortunately, this has been an amendment on the very first day that was attached to this bill which would stop the environmental protection agency forever from enforcing the clean air act as it relates to carbon pollution. now, this is a first-of-a-kind,

it's never been done. it's essentially a repeal of the clean air act as it involves one particular pollutant, carbon, which has been found to be an endangerment to our people, an endangerment to our people. the e.p.a. didn't just wake up one day and say, we think carbon is dangerous. no. the scientists in both the bush administration and the obama administration found out that carbon is a dangerous pollutant, dangerous to the health of our families. so e.p.a., in what is i think a very solid way, has started to prepare to regulate carbon. now, they have done it in a way that has said they're not going after farms, they're not going after small business, they are going after the biggest polluters in the country. well, guess what? the friends of those polluters right here in this senate chamber have decided -- and they

already did it in the house, the new republican majority -- that they're going to stop e.p.a. in its tracks. that is why i will ask unanimous consent to place in the record a very good letter from the american lung association, the american public health association, the trust for america's health, the physicians for social responsibility, and asthma and allergy foundation of america, i'd ask to put that in the record. the presiding officer: without objection it will be included in the record. mrs. boxer: and they say -- they say, "we strongly oppose congress' blocking e.p.a.'s efforts to implement the clean air act." that's one of the things they say in this letter. then i ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter from -- by the way, these are newly dated letters, two days ago -- yesterday, one of them -- business for innovative climate in energy policies. i'd ask unanimous consent to put that letter in the record. the presiding officer: without

objection, it will be included in the record. mrs. boxer: it says, "business supports e.p.a.'s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions," and it's a letter from anne kelly, who's the director of this organization. she's writing as major u.s. businesses to urge you to oppose all the amendments that would block delay or curtail e.p.a.'s ability to take action on the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. it is not business friendly. it is friendly, these terrible amendments, to the biggest polluters in america, who today just took a full-page ad -- i guess they can afford 20 grand, maybe it's 50 -- i don't know what it cost them -- a whole page here saying, "stop e.p.a.'s job-killing greenhouse gas regulation." of course, who are city in the industrial minerals association, the mining association, the petroleum marketers, chemical manufacturers, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. so i guess the question for us

as a body is, who do we stand with? the biggest polluters in the america or the american people? 69% of whom said -- and i could see that chart -- 69% of whom said in a bipartisan poll, mr. president, e.p.a. should update clean air act standards with stricter air pollution limits. this group here in this body, for whatever their reasons -- and i respect their reasons, just strongly disagree with th them -- are saying stop e.p.a., stop. 68% believe congress should not stop e.p.a. from enforcing clean air act standards. and that's what these amendments do. now, i say to you, show me one other thing besides we all love our mothers that would get 68% of the vote of the american people in a bipartisan vote.

69% believe e.p.a. scientists, not congress, should set pollution standards. but we have senators here playing scientists, putting on their white coats, deciding what e.p.a. should do when it ought to be based on science. and what is the science telling us? that it's dangerous to breathe in air pollution with lots of carbon in it. now, i would ask that i could put another letter in the reco record. center for biological diversity, clean air task force, clean water action, conservation law foundation, defenders of wildlife. i can't even take the time to read -- interfaith power and light, league of women voters, nrdc, safe clie pat campaign, see -- climate campaign, sierra club, union of concerned scientists, republicans for environmental

protection. i love that one. voices for -- world wildlife fun. same letter. i'd ask that be put in the record, dated march 30 march 30s year. the presiding officer: without objection, it will be included in the record. mrs. boxer: thank you. it says, "for 40 year the e.p.a. hazy protected our health -- has protected our health and for 40 years, the clean air act has been reducing dozens of pollutants while contributing to america's economic prosperity." every single time we try to rein in pollution, special interests say, no, no, no, a thousand times no, we'll stop growth, we'll stop jobs, we'll kill the economy, it's awful, awful, awful. well, let me give you one economic fact. if you can't breathe, you can't work. and here's a little girl, a little girl suffering, struggling. i urge my colleagues who support mcconnell to look at this. they're not here but maybe on tv

they will. look at this picture. she's gasping for air. is that what we want for her future? we have another picture of a little boy. this is -- this is what's happening in this country. because of the polluters who won't clean up their mess. here's another beautiful child. we all love children. how many speeches have we had on this floor -- we love children, children are our future, we'll fight for their future? do you want their future to look like this, breathing through a device? come on, this is clear. you go to any school -- i defy my colleagues, try this. go to any school in your state, and say, by the way, how many of you have asthma? and you'll see the little hands go up. and then you say, how many of you know someone with asthma? you'll see half the class raise their hands. and yet what are we doing here on this beautiful bill that

senator landrieu i know wants to have a clean bill. she doesn't want these amendments on it, regardless of how she may feel or i may feel. we both agree we shouldn't have these amendments. but so be it. but we've got to vote these amendments down. because we are responsible for these kids. and all our side is saying is very simple, the clean air act has worked. if i went up to you and said, if you think you know something's working perfectly well, would you mess with it? would you change it? no. why would you, if it's working well? so let's take a look at how well is the clean air act working. and, mr. president, i know how strongly you feel on this subject. so let's take a look at this. in 2010, the clean air act prevented 160,000 of premature deaths. 160,000 premature deaths. by 2020, that number is

projected to rise to 230,000 cases. so if we stay on course and we don't fool around with the clean air act, as my republican friends have already done in the house -- and i pray god they don't succeed here -- we're going to see 230,000 more deaths in 2020. in 2010, the clean air act prevented 1.7 million fewer asthma attacks. i showed you the picture of those children. why do we want to mess with th that? the clean air act prevented 130,000 acute heart attacks. you read the stories. so and so went out, heavy, bad air day, took a little jog and collapsed. i've got to tell you, we have a success story to tell about what the clean air act is doing, and i'll show you a chart of what happened in los angeles. a lot of you go to my beautiful

state. i know the chairman of the committee said she just was there and it was a terrific visit to our state. we have a magnificent state. but there were times when you went to los angeles, you saw the air. that is not a good thing. when you see the air, that is a bad thing. and the air was thick. and people were told in many, many mornings, do not go out unless you must, the air is so dangerous. the clean air act passed. the clean air act passed and guess what? in 2010, we had no mornings like that. none. we went from 166 days a year of health advisories in southern california to none in 2010. and i've got to say, you show me any other law that has had this record of success, i'll smile

and be happy. we went from 166 days a year of smog advisories to none because of the clean air act. i've already told you we've saved lives. asthma attacks, we have done it all. and yet there are people in this chamber who want to either postpone enforcing the clean air act as it relates to carbon or want to stop it forever, which is the mcconnell and the worst amendment of them all if i had to rate them. and i have a couple of other charts to share with you and then i'll close. the mcconnell amendment, which is, i say, the worst of all the amendments -- none of them are good -- none of them are good. they all interfere with the environmental protection agency, which is supported, the e.p.a., by 69% of the people. but the mcconnell amendment is

a disaster. it's the same as the upton amendment, the upton bill in the house and the inhofe bill in the senate. and the mcconnell amendment, what does it do? it says, forever more, the e.p.a. cannot do anything to regulate carbon pollution. regardless of how dangerous it is, regardless of what the scientists tell us, regardless of what the physicians tell us, regardless of what the people tell us through the polls, regardless of what our communities tell us, what our states tell us, what our mayors tell us. forever more, they are repealing the clean air act as it relates to carbon pollutionment. -- pollution. outrageous, we have to beat it. we must beat it. it is so bad. it goes against the supreme court decision and, by the way, there will be lawsuits up the witwazoo if it ever became law.

the supreme court said if we find scientists that carbon pollution is dangerous, we have to regulate it. guess what? the scientists found that carbon pollution is dangerous. the e.p.a. is ready to act i think in a judicious way, they're not going after farms or small business. that's not good enough. these special interests who took this huge ad today standing against the -- beautiful ad. it looks element environmental. green. this isn't green. it's dirty. dirty air. that's what this ad stands for, dirty air. a lot of people didn't want me to come back here because they knew i'd come here and tell the truth about this. but i'm here.

i'm going to tell the truth every day every way because i love my grandkids and i love everybody's grandkids. and, as far as i'm concerned, that's why i'm here. not to protect the rich polluters who make billions of dollars a year. they can clean up their act we proved it. we proved it. we said, we don't want kids struggling for air. and we said we can do this right. we proved it. we not only proved that we can clean up the care, we not only proved that we can save lives, we not only proved that you can save asthma attacks, we proved that you can grow this economy. i'm going to close now and let my friend from louisiana have the floor. i have to close with this, there's a lot of talk about how this is bad for business. but the fact is every time the polluters got up and said, don't pass anymore clean air act

amendments, it's going to be bad for jobs, we found out that cleaning up the environment actually creates jobs. not only does it create jobs, it creates new technologies. not only does it create new technologies, but those technologies are exported to the world. and i will place in the record the number of jobs that have been created as we move to clean up the air. so the reason i'm here in this -- i think this is quite a spirited discussion that i'm having with all of you -- is because we are facing four bad amendments. four. count them. one, two, three, four. the worst being mcconnell. all of which will either slow town the e.p.a. or stop the e.p.a. and, by the way, the mcconnell amendment is so terrible, that it even says, e.p.a. can no longer have anything to do with tailpipe emissions in cars, which is such an important part of our dirty air that we -- we

are facing. so in closing, i want to say, according to information from the institute of clean air companies, those are american companies, who oppose this big-polluting companies. from 1999 to 2 -- 1999 to 2001 the number of boiler makers increased by 6,700. a 35% increase. even though we said you have to clean up the air. the department of commerce shows the u.s. environmental technology industry generate generated $300 billion in revenues, supported $1.00 -- 1.7 million jobs. the air pollution control sector produced $18 billion in revenue. small and medium-sized companies make up 99% of the private-sector firms in this sector of the economy. so here's what you've got, you've got these huge multibillion dollar polluters who can afford to take one page

ads -- full-page ads in "the washington post", they want to continue polluting the air and they don't want to clean it up. and you have a whole other group of businesses who have written to us and said, please, let the e.p.a. do its work. it saves lives. it saves our children. and it creates many jobs. new jobs, clean jobs, good jobs. if we go down the path of the mcconnell amendment and these other amendments, we are ceding our leadership in environmental and clean tech to china. that is the last thing we want to do. they are already surpassing us in solar production and we created it. so, ladies and gentlemen, the bill before us is a fine bill. i hope, if we have to vote for these amendments, and they do

come up as part of this agreement as we move forward, we will not pass any of them and we will allow the people to have their way. 69% of them say let the e.p.a. do their job. thank you, mr. president, and thanks to senator landrieu and i yield the floor and turn it over to senator vitter. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you. since president obama took office, the price at the pump has risen 96% from $1.83 t to $3.60 with absolutely no end in sight. meanwhile, and not coincidentally, the president has virtually shut down the gulf of mexico. he's canceled numerous energy lease sales. he's refused to act on stalled onshore permits. he's dramatically increased environmental regulation, and

he's begun regulating co2 by administrative fiat. all of that has helped us to get to where we are. mr. president, president obama went today to georgetown university and at least he's begun focusing on and addressing the energy situation. and i guess i give him points for that. he went to georgetown today and delivered a peac speech which he called a blueprint for a secure energy future. but, like a lot of presidential speeches, mr. president, this is great sounding, rah, rah, nice title, but pretty disappointing from my point of view on substance much first of all, let's -- substance. first of all, let's talk about the premise of a speech, a blueprint for a secure energy future. i was hopeful on hearing about the plan for this speech that we would be seeing an unveiling of a real energy policy, including, moving in the right direction in

terms of domestic production, utilizing our domestic energy resources. but, unfortunately, mr. president, this is more of the same. in fact, the president admits freely this is absolutely more of the same. he says -- quote -- "today my administration is releasing a blueprint for a secure energy future that outlines the comprehensive national energy policy with push since the day i took office." close quote. so this is simply a restatement of the last two years of policy. in my opinion clearly failed, clearly counterproductive policy that has helped us get to $3.60 at the pump and climbing. when you look even more at the substance of the speech, mr. president, it's more disappointing. the whole speech is about 51 paragraphs. of those 51 paragraphs, i look to see how many are about

tapping our domestic traditional energy resources. well, six paragraphs of 51. just a little over 10%. four paragraphs were about domestic oil production and two were about domestic natural gas production. an even though two were mostly about possibly increasing regulation on production of natural gas from shale making it more difficult not accessing more of our domestic energy resources. and then what's the picture on domestic oil production? those four paragraphs? well, the president says -- quote --"to keep reducing that reliance on imports, my administration is encouraging offshore oil exploration and production." close quote. really? that's a news headline to my constituents in the gulf coast. because every day we live a far different reality.

we live the reality of an administration that's moved in the opposite direction making domestic oil-and-gas production far more difficult, not easier. since the tragedy of the b.p. disaster, we've only have had seven deep water exploratory permits issued. seven issued compared to a comparable period before the disaster, 68. so about 10%. that is encouraging offshore oil and gas exploration production? i don't think so. since that disaster, the working rotary rigs in the gulf has fallen dramatically from about 55 to 25. it's been cut in more than half. that is encouraging offshore oil exploration production? i don't think so. we need to change the policy that is virtually shutting down the gulf and stopping domestic energy production.

seven deep water exploratory permits is not adequate. seven, as i said, is roughly 10% of the rate that existed before. of course we need to make changes, and we have. of course we need to learn the lessons of the deepwater horizon explosion, and we have. but, seven, again, is roughly 10% of the previous rate. we need to do far better. and if we're going to really encourage that domestic production, what about things like production in alaska's beauford sea? e.p.a. is sitting on those permits, not issuing those permits. as a result shell oil announced that it's abandoning efforts to produce anything there. is that what the president's talking about? encouraging oil exploration production? what about the lease sales he canceled? president obama canceled the western gulf lease sale that was scheduled. he canceled that in may of 2010.

mr. president, if you're serious, are you going to reverse that decision? also in may of 2010, the president canceled the planned virginia lease sale. now, unfortunately in this speech he didn't reverse that policy. he's continuing that cancellation. what about the cancellation of offshore tracks in alaska's cook inland? the president canceled that in march of this year, this month, and, unfortunately, in this speech he did not reverse that policy. withdrawn leases. the president's department of interior has withdrawn 77 lease sales in utah that were planned. withdrew those in 2009. no reversal on that policy. is that encouraging oil exploration and production? so time and again the president has actually worked in the opposite direction, shutting down domestic production, making it more difficult, not, as he

said in his speech today -- quote -- "encouraging oil exploration and production." close quote. we need a new energy policy, not a restated policy. not same old same old from the last two years. and we need a policy that does many things including accesses our enormous abundance of energy resources in this country. you know, americans are not used to thinking of ourselves as energy rich, but we are. and nonpartisan and nonbias sources like congressional resource service says -- research service says that we are the most energy-rich country in the world, bar none. the only country coming close to us is russia in terms of our vast array and amount of domestic energy resources. now, rather than to have a thinking of ourselves that way for a simple reason, the united states congress and this

president in particular, has taken 95% of the those abundant resource and put them off limits under federal law. no other energy-rich country does anything like that. we continue to do it even with the price at the pump rising so dramatically. we need to stop that. we need to access our own richness, our own resources to take care of ourselves. and that's a big part of the energy plan we need, which, unfortunately, was not part of the president's blueprint for a secure energy future unveiled today, restated today at georgetown. many colleagues will join me tomorrow in introducing a bill that lays out that new energy vision to unlock the enormous potential we have here at home. and the bill is called 3d, the domestic jobs, domestic energy and deficit-reduction act of 2

201. i'm honored -- 2011. i'm honored to be joined by 20 to 30 colleagues. the list is still growing. we're formally introduce that act tomorrow. this is aimed at our domestic energy resources, unshackling that potential. letting us get access to that enormous potential for our domestic energy, and with it, great u.s. jobs, jobs right here in this country and deficit reduction. so many of the primary challenges we face find their nexus in energy, again energy independence. self-reliance which we need now more than ever, particularly with unrest in the middle east. secondly, jobs. we say we're trying to do everything we can to come out of this very tough recession, but we're not because the u.s. energy sector has the potential for enormous job growth, and again we have taken such a large

percentage of those resources, 95%, and put them off-limits in deficit reduction. along with producing more domestic energy would come tremendous revenue to the federal government. after the personal income tax, this is the top source of federal revenue. royalties on domestic energy production. second only to the personal income tax. so again, why don't we solve all of these problems, energy independence, u.s. jobs, deficit reduction by fully developing, aggressively developing our u.s., our domestic energy sector. specifically, our 3-d bill would do six primary things. first, it mandates outer continental shelf lease sales, directing the interior department to conduct a lease sale in each outer continental shelf planning area for which there is a commercial interest.

it would also consider the 2010- 2015 planning area complete. secondly, it would open up anwar, the alaska national wildlife refuge to energy production. this is a vast source of potential energy production, job creation, deficit reduction, again, that we have put off-limits through congressional and presidential action. third, it would require action on stalled onshore permits, things like the leases that interior withdrew in 2009 in utah, things like the e.p.a. inaction actually withdrawing a c.w.a. perimeter for spruce number one mine in west virginia. state department sitting on the permit issue in terms of the key stone x.l. pipeline project, the e.p.a. not issuing permits for shell oil operations in off

shore alaska. so it would direct action in awful those areas. fourth, it would properly limit time frames for environmental and judicial review. it would not change any of those review standards. it would just change the law so that those reviews couldn't go on ad infinitum. it would streamline the process and properly and reasonably limit those time frames. fifth, it would block regulation of co2 co2 -- of co2 by administrative fiat. we'll have a vote coming up soon on that very issue. i would hope that it would be a majority vote in favor of this opinion to block that regulation by administrative fiat that i espouse. this is also included in the 3-d bill. and six, we would actually create an alternative energy trust fund from 25% of the new revenue produced from anwar, so it would capture 25% of that

brand-new revenue for alternative energy development research and production, and that would be positive as well. this is the sort of domestic energy focus i think we need. this is the sort of movement toward real energy security as well as job creation, as well as deficit reduction that i would have hoped the president would have at least hinted at at georgetown today, but he did not. his speech was same old, same old, explicitly restating what he has been doing for the last two years. mr. president, i urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort, to join in similar efforts. americans face tough times, and it's not being made any tougher by the price at the pump going up and up and up. again, since president obama took office, that price has risen 96% from $1.83 per gallon to $3.60 per gallon, and there

is no end in sight. we need to access our own resources. we need to put americans to work. we need to reduce our deficit with that extra new revenue, and we can do it all by accessing u.s. domestic energy resources more fully, not putting 95% of those resources off-limits off the table by either presidential fiat or congressional action. i urge all of my colleagues to join us in this effort, to join similar efforts, to give americans real relief at the pump, to increase our energy independence, to lower the deficit, to produce good american jobs. thank you, mr. president, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 4:00 p.m. with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with senators

permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the senate is in a quorum call, is that correct? the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. reid: i ask that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: for the benefit of all senators, we've been working in

the last 24 hours, or more, trying to work our way through the amendments to get to a vote on this most important bill that we're dealing with. -- with, the small business innovation bill. a bill that has already created thousands and thousands of jobs around the country. an extremely important bill. we need to reauthorize this. it's a relatively small amount of money and it generates a lot of jobs. but we've been stuck. i think we've had a breakthrough that we can at least hopefully work toward conclusion of this extremely difficult matter. i've spoken to one senator who had a concern about an issue that is actually been held up that's a republican amendment held up by a republican not allowing us to have a vote on that. i think we've worked our way through on that.

and now the floor staff is trying to come up with a consent agreement that would work toward having a vote to -- a vote on the 1099, the tax reporting requirement and also there are a number of amendments here that people wish to have votes on dealing with e.p.a. standards. and i think we're at a place where we can perhaps set some votes up. mr. president, with the difficulty of all the things we have today, including a briefing by the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and the chairman of the join chiefs on libya, i think realistically we won't have any votes this afternoon. tomorrow morning we have the funeral in new york for geraldine ferraro. so we'll work hard to setup a series of votes tomorrow afternoon. but it could be a significant number of votes. it could be -- i'm just trying to think here -- it could be 10

votes or so tomorrow afternoon. and if it has to spill over into friday, we'll have to do that. but at least i think we'll have the vote done tomorrow with a little bit of good fortune that we can work with the few problems we still have outstanding and move forward on senator landrieu's bill that she and senator snowe have worked so hard on. so i hope this -- let the senators know what we're doing even though it may seem like nothing, it's been a lot of work going to this and it's fair to say that we'll have no more votes today. try to get some setup for tomorrow afternoon. i would note the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, often i come to the united states senate to talk about alternative energy. most of the time it's about biofuels. sometimes it's about wind because i'm the author of the wind energy tax credit.

sometimes it's to speak about it. hardly ever do i come to the floor to talk about it in regard to the attempt to amend a certain bill on the floor. i come for that purpose now, and i come to express my strong opposition to an amendment number 220 that has been filed at the desk by senator coburn. and i don't find any fault with the issue that senator coburn raises, only when it is raised, and i sense from some of his arguments and press releases that it's raised to bring up the issue of energy and what energy should be subsidized or not subsidized or whether any energy ought to be subsidized, and also maybe to point out some things that are wrong with the tax code. and i can't find any fault with any of those motives.

i only find fault with, let's say in the sense of this is being brought up, to show that there are some things that are wrong with the tax code and the tax code ought to be reformed. yes, if anybody said that the tax code was a perfect piece of work, they would think well, you have been in washington too long. you don't exercise good judgment. you're not in the real world. and so i think it's perfectly legitimate to bring up issues about the tax code, but in the sense of reform of the tax code, not as an isolated amendment to some other bill for the simple reason that if you do that with our complexity of our tax code, reforming in that way, every senator attempt to go do that would be growing a long graybeard for the years it would take to do it piecemeal, but hopefully we can get it done sometime in the context of tax

reform and tax simplification and flat tax or fair tax, and also with the corporation tax. and also the motives of bringing up things about subsidies for energy. a perfectly legitimate subject to bring up, but it ought to be brought up in the context of national energy policy because i believe senator coburn is just like me. he feels that if you're going to have a growing economy, you've got to have a -- a growth in the use of energy except for possible conservation. if you're going to do more for more people, then you're going to have to have an increase in the use of energy. so it's in that vein that i state my opposition to the coburn amendment. senator coburn's amendment would raise tax on domestic energy production by repealing an incentive for the use of

home-grown renewable ethanol. i'm astonished that given our current situation, there are some who would prefer less domestic energy production. you know, with conflicts in the middle east and crude oil over over $100 a barrel. we should be on the same side. and i have always considered myself on the same side as senator coburn on energy issues. we should all be on the side of more domestically produced energy, and that would be nuclear energy, it would be alternative energy, it would be drill here and drill now, because the tremendous cost of america's dependence on foreign oil has never been more clear than when you have the conflicts and the revolutions going on in oil-producing regions of the

world now in the pleased and northern africa. so we have this threat, and in light of that threat, we should have an energy policy that i would say -- quote -- unquote -- all of the above, you don't pick and choose. i support drilling here and drilling now. i support renewable energy. i support conservation, both what might be mandated by public policy as well as personal conservation, and i think people that know me know that i have a reputation for conservation for several reasons. maybe energy conservation, but also it leaves more money in your pocket, and i also support nuclear energy. so i believe it's very counterproductive for senators from big oil country to single

out energy that comes from american agriculture, renewable energy. home-grown energy. not import. i didn't pick this fight. i support energy from all sources. i support traditional oil and gas, and more of it from here. i held 21 meetings in 20 different counties monday through thursday last year through the recess. there wasn't a one of them that didn't say how come we aren't making more use of our own energy. they didn't say that we import import $730 million a day of oil. but i told them. and it emphasized their point. why ship $730 million every day overseas to parts of the world

where they use the money to train terrorists to kill us? and of course, american taxpayers, american taxpayers. with tax incentives have been supporting oil and gas for over 100 years. so the attack on home-grown energy is really remarkable, isn't it? we shouldn't be fighting each other over domestic energy sources. we should be fighting opec and foreign dictators and oil sheiks that hold our economy hostage. and you see it right now because of the anxiety about what's going on in libya. raising the price of gasoline 75

cents or 80 cents. the author of the amendment has argued that the production of clean home-grown ethanol is fiscally irresponsible. it's important to remember that the incentive exists to help producers of ethanol to compete with the oil industry. you're so often here in this town, we have to have a level playing field. and remember, the oil industry has been well supported by the federal treasury for more than a century. oil was discovered in 1859. i don't know how many years later there were tax incentives for the production of oil, but it's been a long, long time. president obama in his budget request for 2012 has advocated repealing a dozen or so subsidies to big oil. he's argued that a century-old industry no longer needs tax breaks. with oil prices at $100 a barrel

and record profits being made, some could certainly question why this industry needs any taxpayer subsidy at all. president obama's proposal would repeal a $44 billion in oil and gas subsidies over a ten-year period of time. i would like to remind my colleagues of a debate that we had last summer on an amendment offered by the distinguished senator from vermont, senator sanders. the amendment he offered would have, among other things, repealed about $35 billion of tax subsidies enjoyed by the oil and gas industry. opponents of the sanders' amendment argued that repealing the oil and gas subsidies would reduce domestic energy production and drive up our dependence upon foreign oil. well, we don't want to do that, do we? now, opponents also argued that it would cost u.s. jobs, and we also argued that it would

increase prices at the pump for consumers, something you don't want to do when you're in a recession. i tend to agree with these arguments in regard to the help that the federal treasury gives to oil companies, and all of my republican colleagues and more than one-third of the democrats did as well, but a repeal of the ethanol tax incentive is a tax increase as well that will surely be passed on to the american consumer. no different for ethanol in your gas tank than gasoline in your gas tank. if you take subsidies off of oil, it raises the price of gasoline. if you take the incentives off of ethanol, it raises the price of ethanol. i know that removing incentives for oil and gas will have the same impact as removing

incentives for ethanol. we'll get less domestically produced ethanol. it will cost u.s. jobs. it will increase our dependence upon foreign oil. it will increase the price at the pump for the american consumer. we're already dependent upon foreign sources for more than 60% of our oil needs. why do my colleagues at this time want to increase our foreign energy dependence when we can produce it right here at home? clean burning, environmentally good. so i'd like to ask my colleagues who voted against repealing oil and gas subsidies but support repealing incentives for renewable fuels, why do you have this inconsistency? where are the amendments for fiscal -- from fiscal conservatives and deficit hawks to repeal the oil and gas subsidies?

the fact is it's intellectually inconsistent to say that increasing taxes on ethanol is justified but that it's irresponsible to do the very same thing on oil and gas production. if tax incentives lead to more domestic energy production and good-paying jobs, why are only incentives for oil and gas so important in accomplishing that goal it's even more ridiculous to claim that the 30-year-old ethanol industry is mature and thus no longer needs the support of the taxpayers while the century-old oil industry still receives $35 billion in taxpayers' support. regardless, i don't believe that we should be raising taxes on any type of energy production or

on any individual, particularly during a weak economy. the senator from oklahoma insists that because the renewable fuel is required to be used, then somehow it doesn't need an incentive. but with oil prices at $100 a barrel, oil companies are doing everything they can to extract more oil from the ground. there isn't a mandate to use oil, but it has a 100-year monopoly on our transportation infrastructure, so essentially it is a mandate. when there is little competition to oil and it's enormously profitable, you'll see those reports next week, wouldn't -- wouldn't the sponsor argue that the necessary incentives exist to produce it without additional taxpayer support, if you wanted to be consistent? oil essentially does have a mandate, as i just said.

the economics of oil production are clearly in favor of the producer, not the consumer. why do they need taxpayer support? it's also important to understand the hidden costs of our dependence upon foreign oil. we had a peer review paper published in 2010 concluding that quote. somewhere -- let me say parenthetically, and then i will quote, somewhere between between $27 billion and is 30 billion is the leeway. $27 billion to $137 billion is spent annually by the u.s. military to protect -- for protection of middle east maritime oil transit routes and oil infrastructure, with an average of $84 billion a year, end of quote. this is an $84 billion in american treasury money spent on the defense of shipping lanes to

quench our thirst for foreign oil. it's not reflected in the price at the pump. it's a hidden cost, and that hidden cost is paid by the very same people who support the military, our navy, the american taxpayers. milton copulus, an advisor to president ronald reagan and a veteran of the heritage foundation, testified before congress in 2006 on this very issue. he testified that the hidden costs of imported oil is equivalent to adding $8.35 to the price of a gallon of gasoline from the persian gulf. there is no hidden u.s. military cost attributed to homegrown ethanol. do you understand that? you don't have to have the navy of the united states keeping shipping lanes open for the ethanol that you burn in your

car. no subsidy of $8.35 a gallon for ethanol like there is for oil, according to the heritage foundation. so, let's have a debate on ethanol, but let's debate it in the context of a comprehensive energy plan. this debate should include the subsidies for all energy production. you don't pick out one versus others. i mean what's unique about the subsidy for ethanol? but you also have from grain biodiesel. when's that going to come up? you have a subsidy for wind energy i. know it because i got that legislated 18 years ago. subsidy for solar. subsidy for biomass. subsidy for geothermal. subsidy for nuclear energy. why just ethanol at this point? but i said at the beginning the

legitimacy of talking about energy subsidies -- oil, alternative energy, nuclear energy, conservation, legitimate, but don't pick one out. what are you going to do about all of the rest of them? are you going to take a subsidy a day? take wind tomorrow? take solar tomorrow or the next day? well, if you -- there's a context to do this in. we all say we need a national energy policy. these things have to be discussed in the context of a national energy policy. nearly every type of energy gets some market-distorting subsidy from the federal government. you can say that's not right. but do you want alternative energy or don't you want alternative energy? you want renewable energy or don't you want renewable energy? do you think you'd have an ethanol industry today if there

hadn't been a tax incentive a long time ago? no. what about all the people that say, well, we shouldn't be using corn or grain, a food product, for fuel. we ought to be eating it. well, they say you ought to use corn stover, you ought to use wood chips, you ought to use wood grass, other things that have cellulose in it and get your ethanol from that. you know what? i agree 100%. but how in the heck do you think you would ever get to producing ethanol out of corn -- i mean out of corn stover and wood chips and switch grass et cetera, et cetera, if you hadn't had 30 years of engineering to make ethanol out of grain, which you didn't do very efficiently 30 years ago, but now you do

much more efficiently today. and so you've got to have the first generation for the second generation. well, i say an honest energy policy and debate should include ethanol, it should include subsidies for oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, wind, solar, biomass. how in the heck do you think that we would ever get hydropower in the west if the taxpayers hadn't paid for the hoover dam? so it's hypocritical to put our economic and national security at risk by targeting ethanol while disregarding the subsidies for all other energy sources. and do you know the debate about alternative energy is a debate about our national security? because for this country, the number-one -- the number-one

responsibility of the federal government is our national defense. and just think how weak our national defense is when you've got to depend upon oil coming from the middle east where there's revolution going on right now. wouldn't it be better for it to be domestically is is crude? why do you think the defense department right now and the aviation industry right now is putting money into research to develop alternative energies, including stuff that we call renewable? and even things that we don't know much about yet. ethanol from algae is an example, because our military leaders know you shouldn't be dependent on. and just think of the retired generals and admirals that are out here speaking every day of why we need alternative energy, and speaking very highly of ethanol. so i say it's hypocritical because it's got something to do

with our national security, and we ought to take an oath to uphold -- we do take an oath to uphold the constitution and the national security is our number-one responsibility. because you know, state governments and local governments, they can't protect you from foreign intervention, people that want to kill you. only the federal government is qualified and has the power to do it, the constitutional power. but also to bring the resources together to get the job done. so repealing the ethanol tax incentive will raise taxes on producers, blenders and ultimately consumers for renewable fuel. this amendment is a gas tax increase of over 5 cents a gallon at the pump. i just don't see the logic in arguing for a gas tax increase when we have so many americans unemployed and underunemployed struggling just to barely make it from day to day. i know we all agree that we

cannot and should not allow job-killing tax hikes during this time of economic recession and, more importantly, that recession is going to stay as long as there's some economic uncertainty. and debates like this, should we be importing more oil, lend themselves to that uncertainty. unfortunately, those members who have called for ending the ethanol incentive have directly contradicted this pledge of not having tax hikes because a lapse in credit will raise taxes, cost over 100,000 u.s. jobs at a time of near 9% unemployment and increase our dependence upon foreign oil. there's a taxpayer watchdog group called americans for tax

reform. consider repeal of this incentive to be a great big tax increase. americans for tax reform -- quote -- "repealing the ethanol credit is a corporate income tax increase." i agree. now is not the time to employ -- impose a gas tax hike on the american people. now is not the time to send pink slips to ethanol-related jobs. ethanol currently accounts for 10% of our transportation fuel. a study concluded that the ethanol industry contributed $8.4 billion to the federal treasury in 2009, $3.4 billion more than the ethanol incentive. today the industry supports 400,000 u.s. jobs. that's why i support a homegrown renewable fuels industry. i'd like to conclude by asking my colleagues if we allow the

tax incentive to lapse, from where would we import an additional 10% of our oil? because there's a policy of this congress, don't drill in the united states. import it. the president was in brazil last week, i believe it was, saying, you know, president of brazil, you ought to drill off the shore of brazil because we want to import oil from you. at the very same time we're slow at issuing permits so we can drill our own oil off of our own shoerbgs particularly in the gulf of mexico -- own shore, particularly in the gulf of mexico. where are we going to go? to the middle eastern oil sheikhs to give them money to train terrorists to kill us? or do we want to get it from hugo chavez who every day is saying something about how he hates america?

he's taking position, the side of qadhafi right this very day against the revolutionaries of that country, the very people we're trying to help, bring a better life to those people there and stop genocide. i don't think we want to go to the middle east for 10% more of our energy in our car or to hugo chavez. i'd prefer instead that we support renewable fuel produced right here at home rather than send our workers a pink slip. i'd prefer to decrease our dependence on hugo chavez, not increase that dependence on him. and i certainly don't support raising the tax on gasoline during this weak economy. let me say something that i said at the beginning, and then i'm going to yield the floor. and that is that there's a context to talk about this. there's nothing illegitimate about anybody bringing up any

tax incentive any time they want to about any law that's on the books, because they ought to be reviewed from time to time. but when it comes to energy policy at a time of $4 gas, at a taoeufpl anxiety -- at a time of anxiety about what's going on in libya, at a time we know people in this country want an energy policy, it ought to be talked about in the context of energy legislation. you should talk about subsidy as a generic subject, not just picking out ethanol or any other one just like some people here would like to pick out the subsidy for oil and end it, like the president has suggested in his budget. but we want to do it in the context of a national energy policy and a subsidy that's subsidy to oil, to all renewable energies -- and there's a dozen

of them, i'll bet -- to conservation, and to nuclear energy. let's emphasize nuclear energy. when you're talking about a subsidy, do you think we'd have a single nuclear plant in the united states if 60 years ago the federal government, this congress hadn't passed the price-anderson act to set up federal support for indirect or direct, whatever it was that took that to get it going. and we had to reinstitute that in 2005 or we still wouldn't be considering any nuclear plants. so you do it in the context of a national energy policy. you do it in the context of subsidies on all sorts of energy, not just one of them. and if you're doing it for tax reform purposes, then it's got to be done in the context of overall tax reform. because just like i said, you start on this little tax incentive today and that little

tax incentive tomorrow and that little tax incentive the next day, you'll be here as long as methuselah lived in order to get it all done. so, i hope that there will be some consideration of this in a generic way, not in the specific way of this amendment. and that's why i don't support the amendment at this time, but i want people to know that i don't abhor the idea of talking about the ethanol tax credit or any other tax credit. but i want to talk about ending tax credits altogether. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: has morning business concluded? the presiding officer: the time for morning business has expired. mr. paul: i have a motion to present to the desk.

the presiding officer: we're not yet on the bill. mr. paul: okay. can we report the bill, please? the presiding officer: yes. under the previous order, the senate -- morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of senate 493, which the clerk will report. mr. paul: i ask to dispense with reading of the bill. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 17 -- mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent -- the clerk: -- and for other purposes. mr. paul: madam president, i have a motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: thank you. we are now engaging -- it has to be read. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, moves to commit the bill s. 493 to the committee on foreign relations with instructions to report back

forth with an amendment as follows: at the appropriate place insert the following: it is the sense of the senate that the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. mr. paul: madam president, we are engaged in a war at a time when our country is struggling under enormous debt, at a time when we are engaged in two wars. historically, our country has fought war by asking for congressional authority. this was true under iraq. this was true in afghanistan. the president came to congress and there was a vote on a use of force prior to him engaging in force. now, some say, well, this is no big deal. the president should be ail to fight war whenever he wants to

fight war. i beg to differ. our founding fathers begged to differ. madison said that the constitution supposes what history demonstrates. that the executive is the branch most interested in war. therefore, the congress has with studied care invested the power to declare war in the congress. i think this is incredibly important debate. when we talk about sending our young men and women into harm's way, into another war, the fact that we would have a president send us to war without any debate -- your people's representatives have had absolutely no debate, and we are now engaged in a third war. the language of my resolution is not unfamiliar to many. the language of this resolution are the president's words. in 2007, barack obama said, the

president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation thathat does not involve stoppig an actual for eminent threat to the nation." this was very, very clear what the president said, and i agree with what candidate barack obama said. we should not go to war without congressional authority. these are the checks and balances that give you a say, that give the people of america a say through their representatives. this allows us to say when we go to war through our congress, not through one individual but through 535 individuals that you elect. i think the decision to go to war is such an important one that we shouldn't leave it up to one person. our founding fathers agreed with this. in the 1970's, after vietnam, we voted on something called "the

war powers act." we did give the president the right to go to war in certain circumstances. these circumstances were, one, if congress had declared war; two, if congress had authorized use of military force; or, three, if there was imminent danger to our country. i think all of us recognize that. if we were in imminent danger of attack, we would allow the president some latitude. but we would expect very quickly for him to come to congress and ask for permission. in this instance, even the secretary of defense has said that libya is not in our national interest. there is no threat to our national security, and yet we are now involved in a third war. we've already spent $600 million in the first three days of this war. there has been no constitutional authority given to the president to be committing troops to this

war. this is such an important constitutional principle that, while i'm new here in the senate, i am appalled that the senate has abdicated their responsibility. the senate has chosen not to act and to allow this power to gravitate to the president. i think that the precedent -- the precedent for allowing a president to continue to act or to initiative war -- or to initiate war without the representatives of the people having any say is a real probl problem. there was an article this morning in the washington times by general mark kimmit. in he says, "it there is a climate of congress anyive dissidence surrounding the discussion as military seem detached, the lack of connectivity between the use of

force and campaign objectives, the subordination of the military to a nondesighs purpose turns dblgds of policy on the use of force on its head. " "vital national interests are not threatened, nor have sanctions failed or diplomacy been exhausted. we are putting the lives of our troops at risk in a nondecisive role for a mission that does not meet the threshold of a vital or national interest. this is general kimmit goes on further. "for a military carrying the burden of three wars on its back for the foreseeable future, a policy of more frequent intervention and suboptimal use of force as an instrument of diplomacy is a mistake." i come from a state, kentucky, that has two military bases. i see our young men and women going to war, and i worry about their families and themselves engaged in two wars, some of

these young men and women have been going to war for ten years now. and the president now is going to engage us in a third war without any consultation, without any voting in congress, and without any congressional authority. i think this is a very serious breach of our constitution. it is something that we should not let happen lightly. it is something that we should object strenuously to and that we should force a debate in this body. many debates historically have happened here, many important debates. and what's happening now is we are abdicating our duty and allowing this to be made unilaterally by one individual. i think it's a mistake. i think it's a travesty. and i think it should end. there have been some questions about who these people are that we will be supporting in this new war. i think there's no question that qadhafi is a tyrant, an autocrat, and someone that freedom-loving people would

despise. however, do we know who the rebels are? during the 1980's we supported the freedom fighters in afghanistan. do you know who turned out to bed leader of the freedom fighters or one of the leaders? osama bin laden, now our mortal enemy, receiving moneys from the united states and support for the united states for over a decade. in fact, the state department's stated goals in afghanistan during the 1980's was radical jihad. we are in favor of radical jihad because we thought the islamic radicals hated the russians worse than us. they did, until they got rid of the russians. now they hate us as much or more. i think we have to be very careful in going to to war. i told my constituents when i ran for office that the most important vote i would ever take would be on sending their men and women, the boys and girls to war.

to me it is an amazing thing, an amazing thing, that we would do this so lightly, without any consideration by this august body. to send our young men and women to war without any congressional approval. there have been some reports in the media about possible ties of al qaeda to the rebels. this morning in the washington post, a former leader of libya's al qaeda affiliate says he thinks freelance jihadists have joined the rebel forces. nato commander says some of the forces are fighting qadhafi forces. 1,000 jihadists in libya are estimated. these are the rebels. we have to ask ourselves when qadhafi is gone, who will take his place? a 2007 west point study showed that 19% of foreign al qaeda fighters in afghanistan hail

from libya. libya has been supplying the second-leading amount of jihadists to the war in afghanistan. interestingly, where do these fighters go? do the fighters come back to libya to haunt us? when qadhafi is gone, will we now have an al qaeda-supported government in libya? but i think, most importantly, are not the practical aspects of going to war, it's that we didn't follow the constitution in going to war. and we should have. the constitution says very clearly that the power to declare war is a power that was given to congress and not to the president. james madison in "the federalist" paramilitaries was very explicit, that this was a power given to congress and not to the president. the president's own words are incredibly important here. the hypocrisy is amazing.

in 2007 the president said, "any president does not have the power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." and yet here we have a president cavalierly taking us to war. he seems to have had a lot of time to talk to people. he talked to the arab league. they had time to get together and vote on t he talked to the u.n. they had time to get together and vote on it. but he had utter disregard and contempt for the most important body in the united states that represents the people, the u.s. congress. utterer contempt. he's going to nato. he's gone to our allies. he's gone to the inust. he's gone to the arab league. but he has not had one single

minute of debate in congress. to add insult to injury, he chose to go to war while in brazil, while congress was not even in session. this really, really should not be the way we operate as a constitutional republic. i'm saddened that no one here seems to stand up and say, why in the world would we let a president take us to war without any debate? why in the world when we're involved in two wars would we get involved with a third war without having a debate in congress? this, to me, is a remarkable and really tragic set of events. i hope that the congress and the senate in particular will see fit to pass this motion, which sends the bill back to committee with specific instructions. the specific instructions are the president's words, and i'll be more than interested to see whether his supporters here in the senate will support the

candidate barack obama or now the hypocritical version that has become our president. this is an important question beyond, i think, any question that we will address in this year. our fiscal problems are really a tragic problem that we face now, but this really pales in comparison to usurp the power of war, to take that power upon himself unilaterally without any debate in congress. i urge the passage of this motion and recommittal to committee. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, in response to the gentleman -- the senator from kentucky, i'd like to say that he is now to the united states senate and i do not question his sincerity when it comes to the enforcement of our constitution. i share his feelings about the responsibility of congress under that constitution to declare war. i have held previous presidents

of both political parties to that standard, and believe that this president should be held to that standard as we will. -- as well. i may regret some of his characterizations of our president, but i won't go into that at this moment. i will say the following: let's make the record clear about how we got into this situation and why we got into this situation, which the president said the other night. this wasn't a matter of waiting until congress came back from its vacation. it was a matter of innocent people being killed in libya. it was no mistake what qadhafi was going to do. he said, point-blank, i'm going to benghazi. i'm going house to house and room to room and kill people, my own people. and it shouldn't come as any surprise, because he has a history of that. not only killing his own people but killing those innocent passengers on pan am 103. he is a ruthless, bloody dictator, so much so that the arab league of nations broke

precedent and called for libya to be expelled as listening as qadhafi was in charge. his own arab league of nations expelled him. they then turned to the united nations and said, please stop him from killing his own people. mr. paul: will the senator yield for a question? mr. durbin: when i finish my statement, i will. i will be happy to yield. they then say, the arab league, go to the u.n. and create the authority, an international authority to stop it. which was done. it was in the midst of all this that the president was leaving for south america and congress was leaving for a one-week scheduled recess. that's a fact. on the friday, which is now about 10 days ago, before we left, the president had a conference call and invited all the members of the leadership, democrat and republican, house and senate, to listen to a briefing from the situation room about the exact military

situation we faced, and invited questions, comments from all members of congress. -- who were part of that cmpleghts i was part of that conversation. i listened to it carefully. and it became clear to me that the president had laid down certain conditions to the united states' involvement. number one, the president said, no american ground troops. number two, the president said, this is a war of short duration, as far as the united states is concerned. in his words, days, not weeks. and he went on to say that the united states would use its unique capabilities to help those allies of the united states who wanted to stop qadhafi's killing. he used the phrase "unique capability" several times in that conversation, and i wasn't sure what he mefnlts i learned n later in press reports. our planes and the planes of our allies could travel across lib

libya, stop their planes and tanks without danger. so that was the commitment made by the president. now, what does the law say? the law passed by congress over the veto of president nixon, the war powers act, requires the president to notify congress when he initiates this form of military action. did he do it? he did. as a matter of fact, the president submitted a notification to congress within 48 hours of the initiation of these operations, consistent with the war powers resolution. so to argue that the president is circumventing congress is just not factual. he did exactly what the law requires him to do. now, if this president were planning a full-scale invasion, such as we had in kuwait under president george herbert walker bush, with a long period of buildup, i insisted, and

president bush complied with the request to come to congress for authorization. he did it. credit should be given to president bush. he did it. but it was a different circumstance. what the senator from kentucky is suggesting is that president obama should have waited until he could summon congress back into session -- how many days would that be? -- waited until congress deliberated and voted before he took emergency action to protect our allies' planes and our planes to stop qadhafi from killing people. now, i am all in favor of the constitutional powers but i believe there are moments when a president has to have the authority to exercise that kind of military decision when he believes it's in the best interests of the united states. i don't think it's hypocritical. i'm sorry that word was used because i think what the president has said is that he is trying to redefine the role of the united states in the world,

standing up for our values, fighting for peace, trying to stop the carnage that was going on in libya without committing tens of thousands of american soldiers for years at a time. i happen to think that is a worthy foreign policy goal. i also believe that the ball is now in the court of congress. it now is up to the senate foreign relations committee and the house foreign cleelingsz committee to -- foreign relations committee do decide if they want to have hearings on this libyan action, whether or not we take action in response to the president's filing this notice under the war powers resolution. so to argue that the president has just ignored the constitution and ignored the l law, i'm afraid that argument ignores the facts. president filed the notification required by law under the war powers act. now the ball is in our court. are we going to move forward? will we have hearings? will we take action? it's up to congress now. and i sincerely believe there should be hearings.

i hope that this matter is over before we even have the requirement of necessity to ha have -- requirement or necessity to have such hearings. but at this moment in time, as i see it, the president has complied with the law. i'm happy to yield to the senator from committe kentucky a question. mr. paul: yes, in 1974, we were attacked and we had session within 24 hours. in 1997, we were attacked with people from afghanistan, we met within three days and had a use of authorization. i think there's a problem with sort of saying it's okay to declare that the president can go to war after he's already done it. in afghanistan and iraq, with all the complaints from many people on these -- on the different wars that were involved, president bush did come and ask for the authorization of force. we've had two to three weeks of this issue. they had time to go to the u.n., they had time to go to the arab league, they had time to go to

everyone. i think you should be insulted the same way i am insulted snultd they never came to congress. one more question, then i'll let you answer. the war powers act has three specific criteria that allows the president to use force: a declared war, when he has use of authorization, or when we're in imminent danger. which one of those meets the war powers act with regard to libya? mr. durbin: i would say to the senator from kentucky, he is correct in his statement that not only president george herbert walker bush but also george w. bush came to congress and really kind of broke precedent. thathat hadn't happened in korer vietnam. congress deliberated those wars and voted. and i will tell the senator from kentucky since he's my friend and he's new here, it is one of the most compelling votes you will ever cast and i hope you never face it, but if you do, it is one of the votes that will keep you up at night trying to think what's best for america

and what's best for the young men and women who may lose their lives in the process. so in fairness to both presidents bush, they did come to congress. their circumstances were somewhat different. the leadup to the invasion of iraq went on for weeks, if not months. the same thing was true for afghanistan. but remember, in the situation with afghanistan, after 9/11, we were here in this building when it happened. we knew what 9/11 was about and we responded accordingly. this is what i will say. the senator from kentucky has the right to express his point of view, debate it on the floor of the senate and the right to pursue the war powers act which gives congress the authority for a hearing and a decision. but what i would i guess disagree with the senator from kentucky is the characterization that the president did not follow the law. he did notify congress. and i think the circumstances moved so quickly with human life hanging in the balance the president made that decision and now stands with the american people making judgment as to whether it was the proper

decision to make. at this point, madam president, i would like to yield the floor to the senator from kansas for the purpose of debate only with the understanding that when he has completed his debate, we will immediately -- i would suggest the absence of a quorum -- mr. paul paul: one further ques. mr. durbin: okay, fine. mr. paul: all right. the question i have and i think is really going to be important about here, i know the word hypocritical is a strong word. i don't use it like. but the words we're using in this legislation that you'll get a chance to vote on are the words from the president. the president said the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. how do you square that with his actions? mr. durbin: i'd say to the senator from kentucky in response, that is the question raised by the president in his address to the american people the night before last, as to whether or not it is in the best

interests of the united states of america to step forward with our unique capability i, in this case, our air power, as well as our technology, to protect innocent human life. there are some who will argue that he should not have done it and we should just waited to see if qadhafi could keep his word and kill all these innocent people. i think the president made the right humane decision h. we made a -- decision. had we made a fraction of that decision in rwanda, it might have spared tens of thousands of people from dying. same thing might have happened in dur fur. i think the presidents who were in power at that time both personally he ge regret the fact we didn't do anything as those genocides unfolded. president obama did not want that to occur on his watch and thought the united states, in a limited military commitment, could help spare innocent people in libya from this carnage. we can debate as to whether that is appropriate or not. i'm sure we will. and i know the senator from kentucky has his own feelings on the subject. at this point, madam president, i would like to renew my

unanimous consent request, that the senator from kansas, senator moran, be recognized to -- senator moran be recognized to speak in debate only, and that following his remarks, i suggest there be an absence of a quorum and the clerk would call the roll after he's completed his remarks. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. moran: madam president? madam president, i thank the senator from illinois for accommodating my ability to speak on the senate floor this afternoon on what i consider also to be a very significant and important topic. our country is facing significant financial difficulties and in the coming weeks, the united states will reach its $14.29 trillion limit

for borrowing. and, unfortunately, this is the 11th time in the past decade that congress will soon vote on whether or not to allow the country to take on even more debt. these financial challenges that we face if left unchecked will have a disastrous impact upon our country today and upon our citizens in the future. for way too long, members of both political parties have ignored this growing fiscal crisis and have allowed our country to live well, well beyond its means. delaying difficult decisions and simply increasing the debt ceiling once again should not be an option. the time to correct our failures is now. officials from the obama administration warn that the failure of congress to raise the legal debt limit would risk default, but the bigger economic threat that confronts our

country are the consequences of allowing our country's pattern of spending and borrowing to continue without a serious plan to reduce that debt. our out-of-control debt is slowing our economic growth and threatening the prosperity for future generations who will have to pay for our irresponsibility. in the next three decades, our debt very well would grow to more than three times the size of our entire economy. this level of government spending is unsustainable and cannot continue. our congress is engaged in a serious and significant debate now about a continuing resolution. what that continuing resolution is, is a result of the failure of this past congress to pass a budget and to pass appropriation bills to fill in the blanks of that budget. and, in fact, we are now dealing with the next six months of

spending, the end of the fiscal year which ends september the 30th of this year. and we're having an argument about the magnitude of the reductions of spending to include in the final six months of this continuing resolution. and i certainly admit and want to participate in the debate, i admit that it's an important issue, but i think that there is more significant issues yet to come. and while it's important how we resolve the next six months, it's even more important that we adopt a budget for the next fiscal year, fiscal year 2012, that we return to regular order and have an appropriation process in which we can determine levels of spending within that budget, establish our priorities, eliminate programs, decrease spending where appropriate, and move this program to a balanced budget. in addition to this c.r. that we're debating about for the next six months and to next year's budget and appropriation

process, there is looming even the more serious consequences of so-called mandatory spending which comprises 56% of our entire budget. we have got to get beyond the c.r. debate of today and get to the spending problems of 2012 and beyond and to the issues of so-called mandatory spending that consume our budget and drive up, now and in the future, our debt. we need to be responsible and quickly resolve the spending bill for this year and move on to these issues that will determine the future of our country, especially the economic future for the citizens of our nation today and into the futu future. i think the president ought to

consider in his budget -- but he didn't -- the recommendations rf his national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform, and we've seen once again the failure of the budget, as proposed by this president, to include any of those provisions that his own commission recommended in getting us out of the financial difficulty that we're in. it seems to me that often -- at least throughout my lifetime we've heard the discussion here in washington, d.c., i, as an american citizen, as an observer of the politics and the policies of our nation's capital, have heard year in and year out about the need to reduce spending, to balance the books, to quit spending so much money, to be more fiscally responsible, our fiscal house has to be put in order. those are words that i have heard throughout my entire adult life and yet i'm fearful that they have once again just become words. we do not have the luxury of

those words meaning nothing this time around. and i would suggest that there are those who may observe the proceedings of this congress this year and say once again there is a political debate going on, it's rhetoric between republicans and democrats, it's a battle between the house and senate, between the congress and the president without recognizing that this debate has serious consequences to the american people today and into the future. razas i said earlier spending beyond our means is no longer an option much the failure for us to address these issues in a responsible manner means that the standard of living that american citizens enjoy today will be diminished. it means a lower standard of living for every american family. it means the increase in interest rates. it means the return of inflation. it means the increase in our

imbalance of payments. it means that our trade balance is exacerbated. it means that we may follow the path of other countries in the world today who have failed to address these issues and we will see the circumstances that many countries find themselves in in which their credit ratings have diminished and their interest rates have risen. if we fail to respond, if we fail to act as we should, if we let one more time this issue to pass for somebody else to solve because it's so difficult, we will reduce the opportunity that's the next generation of americans have to pursue the american dream. this is not an academic or a political party discussion. it's not a philosophical debate. it has true economic consequences to every american. we are not immune from the laws of economics that face every country. and in the failure to get our

financial house in order and the borrowing under control, interest rates will rise, our creditors may decide that we are no longer creditworthy, and we will suffer the same consequences that countries in our world today are suffering who follow this path. this is the most expected economic crisis in our lifetime. perhaps in the history of our country. we know what is going to happen if we don't act. and it would be a terrible sense of -- we would be acting so immorally and without responsibility should we just look the other way because the politics of this issue are too difficult. americans deserve, are entitled to leadership in washington, d.c., to confront these problems and not to push them off to the next generation of americans. and i'm sorry to say in my view to date the president has provided little leadership on what i consider to be this most

important issue of my generation. my interest in public service and politics is one that has lots of beginnings. but the thing that -- that has me committed to public service today is a belief that i and the people in my generation, in fact, every american citizen, has the responsibility to pass on to the next generation of americans the ability to pursue the american dream. and our failure to act today, our failure to simply raise the debt ceiling one more time means that we will have abdicated our responsibilities and the burdens will fall to those who follow us. we will have lacked the morality and the courage necessary to do right. earlier this week i informed the president in correspondence to president obama on march the 22, with these words, "americans are looking for leadership in washington to confront the problems of today and not to push them off to future

generations. to date, mr. president, you have provided little or no leadership on what i believe to be the most important issue facing our nation, our national debt. with no indication of your willingness to lead will change. i write to inform you, mr. president, that i will vote no on your request to raise the debt ceiling. " i do that because i believe in the absence of serious and significant spending reductions, in the absence and serious and significant reform in the budget and spending process in the absence of a constitutional amendment that -- that restricts our ability to spend money we don't have, in the absence of statutory guidelines that tell us we cannot spend and borrow that our country's future is in grave danger. i do this with a sense of responsibility to americans today and a sense of responsibility for americans to

come. i ask the president to provide that leadership, to address the issues of not only this continuing resolution and next year's spending level and the so-called mandatory spending, but also to create an economy where growth can occur. where men and women make decisions to employ new workers and that the american people have the opportunity when they sit around the dining room table and discuss their future, they know that they have the chance to keep the job they have or to find the job that they don't have. and this will require the leadership of president obama and republicans and democrats in the house and senate. and in the absence of any indication that that leadership is going to be provided and that we're going to be serious in addressing our problems of today and resolving them for the future,ly vote no on extending the debt limit. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: are we in a quorum call? mr. reid: i ask consent that that be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that the senate stand in recess until 6:00 p.m. tonight wit. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate stands in recess until 6:00 p.m. recess:

>> in the british house of commons today, prime minister, david cameron offered an update on libya offering arms sanctions and the arab support of countries in the region. he also responded to questions on domestic issues including increased university tuition,