it is not going to produce a better life for our children. what's going to produce a better life for a ritual for ennis 2% growth, and as leary shows what happens, if you don't grow at what is projected, if you grow better than was projected you do with what better. as of this is a kind of aspirational its optimistic but by the weekend do it if we shift the conversation towards growth and away from what is battering us down and make us feel pretty bad that we are just terrible people. i think we can do it. >> [inaudible] >> that optimistic statement is the most discouraging thing i have heard all day. [laughter] not that i disagree with the direction and the effect of anything the ambassador said, not that i disagree with the idea that growth is very important, but growth is

generated by the expansion of the labor force which is projected to grow very slowly, and improvement in human capital which involves education and training, which occurs only very gradually coming and we know where our output is in terms of elementary and secondary education and even higher education. innovation, which we do a pretty good job of, although once we create the vice made in china or somewhere else and investment, which we've been doing a bad job of because we have a low savings rate and here we have a big deficit to pay down the debt that we had or reduce the growth of the debt.

so, while i agree with a prescription, if we did it we might see a couple tenths of a percentage point added to our underlying 2.5% growth rate, seven, eight, 90 years from now. so instead is the solution to the problem we have no solution. we can't be pawlenty and say let's go 5%. brazil did it without asking how did brazil do it. there are the millions of peasant farmers coming to the city and augmenting our labor supply. where is the foreign capital pouring in? rear is the new oil discovery and the other things that have driven the brazillian growth and while we have so much regulation, it pales to what brazil had. so the consequences just aren't

the same. we can't compare china, brazil, vietnam's growth to that of a mature, high level economy like a verdone with a very low labor force. we have to bite the bullet, and i think the american people are totally disengaged in this. but while simpson was an electric moment for those in the beach community, yet i'm sure if he went beyond the beltway and said, you know, what do you remember about this? it would be senator simpson's kunar and some of his jokes. it won't be the substance or any agreement on the substance. i think there is really no substitute for either a crisis or leadership like we've never

seen before. and by leadership, i mean presidential involvement. the president getting on television and saying here's the nature of the problem we face. let's not point fingers and plame who this person or that group. these are the risks ahead of us. these are the consequences if we fail of your children and grandchildren and the future of america that of course the first reaction were he to do that now is what is your plan, and he has been reluctant to have a plan and maybe he's waiting for the debate to jell a little more, and hopefully at that point leap out. if he does and this occurs between now and august 2nd line with a very i don't think that there is a pro in the world but the legislative language could

be written. first we need a budget resolution that reconciliation then would go to the committee's then to the floor and there would be a conference committee. we are in a glacial pace on capitol hill when they figure out what speed. this would take well into the fall to do, so we would have to have a temporary increase, actually not temporary, a permanent raise for a short period of time. the last thing you want is a temporary increase when you increase the debt ceiling then it would fall back at the end of a period because the wall street would get nervous about that. because we would have to pay off debt. and then hope that the trust that exists will last through this period, through october,

when a package could be put on the floor and voted on. >> about 15 minutes until gene sperling if not before then after. >> i would like to tackle the issue about the public engagement. there's never been a time in our history when you operate on what i call that take away side of the budget which is a tax increase and spending cuts you have to engage to balance the budget but that has been popular. no politician in office has been off what they are going to take away from people. i think that it is a mistake to frame that part of the debate as how we are going to make this popular with the public. basically there's something we have to do we have to do it because it is economically necessary. so then the question is how do you refrain the debate so you can minimize these political losses and not capture a great game and there's several ways

you do it. senator simpson, you may remember when i testified before the commission - told look, if you are going to do anything the press is going to have the same headline as soon as you identify the losers, said something big. you may as well go for something big and that is what you decided to do on the tax expenditures. that's one way. another trick is of course you have to make the pain of not doing something greater than the pain of doing something. so yes, the pain of enacting the deficit reduction is going to hurt, but you have to do it in the way such as when the market's collapse you do it in a way that a politician says but i don't act and in worse shape, i suffer even worse, so it doesn't mean it's popular, it's just worse. then the other thing i do see the missing because the lack of presidential leadership is there are ways of refraining the numbers in the debate so you reach all the stories, for instance, you start reporting on deficits something like taxes of future generations you don't like things that spending increases and tax cuts act like

they are free money, money that grows on trees so we only show tables and distributions the end up saying if i give the money away and giving it as opposed to saying to somebody always pays for it. i think there are ways of refraining the debate so that actually you minimize the political losses, but i really discourage people from trying to think somehow or another we are going to make this popular with the public. it's great to be more popular than the alternatives we are facing economically. >> thank you. my good friend larry lindsey has asked for -- >> thanks. my good friend -- i wasn't going to say this but she provoked me into revealing a truth that no one wants to admit. republicans already have gauged on taxes and it's the simpson baseline. a baseline is maybe what is actually happening. what the baseline is in the simpson budget includes a 700 billion-dollar tax increase

already. now republicans wouldn't because they are moving to basically enact the tax cuts, tax increases on the rich and they call that the new baseline. not reality. so, when you say 3-won the one has already been given by the republicans. the zero option is actually the 321 deal and the problem is that the republicans tried to sneak past grover and get that done. it's not going to work. republicans and democrats are given nothing when it comes to the three. the republicans are given one. >> do you support the one? >> i think revenues are essentials. i do. and i think that there is ways of doing it that aren't going to grow. i think most republicans will. what will happen though, is again, no senate budget resolution this year, no house or senate budget resolution last year. a presidential consultant who

did produce a budget this year, its president and 47 democrats who in 2006 voted against raising the debt ceiling. you know, it's pretty hard after a while to say that somebody out there is credible that you're negotiating with and i think that is the problem. the fact is the republicans have already given on the taxes on the baseline. >> can i respond to that and take ten seconds? three's republicans caved on taxes and as you say. i wouldn't call it caved, three republican senators, three republican house members disagreed and didn't vote, so why don't see the king, and both of the senate minority leader and the speaker of the house said taxes are absolutely positively no way ever on the table. so, i don't see the caving. >> if i could interrupt that's not true. paul ryan said he voted against the bill because it didn't

include health care spending cuts. they are careful not to say they didn't -- they were against -- >> he said right here with the package is. i thought that was relatively open-minded. >> and there's no alternative package. >> to say that republicans as -- i admire congressman ryan and i take your point that's not the reason they voted against it but they also didn't vote for it and treat republican senators do not constitute. >> about the public not caring on almost every time and when we tend to act on these things is when we can find a bipartisan leader consensus and they're remains generally true we had the t.a.r.p. vote to the second time or not come and get burned enough politicians.

we had that though partly because of the coverage of bob dennett and we know what happened to bob benet and the votes for t.a.r.p. were critical elements of that. that means finding a bipartisan leaders consensus is tougher now in part because i've been in this town since before door bar mitzvah, steve. [laughter] and i would say --. i've never seen politics this dysfunctional. there are plenty dysfunctional when we couldn't get the votes for t.a.r.p. the first time they were much more functioning it now than they are now. and we do have a problem in the public which is the are engaged whenever you talk about doing anything to social security or medicare. and when it comes to understanding what is in the budget when you have a public that believes 25% of the budget is foreign aid and we should cut to 10%, i tell my friends in the foreign aid community you should

pop up and say we will go further, we will cut five or 10%. after colonel, i want to get back to -- its 1%. yeah. now, yeah, 0.7%. you know, we talked with great praise of the gang of five or six, and i get that as well, but we did have a bipartisan plan out there. i will give great credit. i don't want al simpson's hid to grow even more. he's already too tall. i would point out for the record that i appointed him or picked him to co-chair the commission and said the table years before that. but the fact is those house republicans had voted for that commission plan, it would have been an action forcing mechanism we would have had a plan like the gang of six up for discussion so the failure to do so, whether it was because of taxes or health care spending or

not was an enormous disappointment to me. it equaled by the disappointment of the president not standing up to the state of the union message saying we have a good plan, let's put it in the legislative language and act on it and we but have had at least an opportunity to get people on the record. now it's clear to me what we have and it's been four months is the ross perot moment by barack obama. that's going on television with handmade charts and explaining what the problem is and what is in the budget. and educating the public and then taking the plan and creating some movement towards action. let me finally say it is absolutely true we have issues of trust with of the two parties the affordable care act was put on the table what we had was a year of relentless discussions of it as.

and a plan that with its exchanges with must have the socialism. and we have exchanges that paul ryan ryan said are affordable to the impact. we have others careened out of control -- she did say that. >> it's an individual choice in the rhine and budget and doesn't federally regulated. it's federally regulated. estimate let me bring in my -- a few words of senate tea here? >> thanks. i just want to take a moment to pull together a bunch of comments that we have heard, and i've heard things paul ryan has an important point we have to get things that are specific on the table coming at one of the more encouraging things is that

that has happened with more and more regularity. we now have a multitude of plans out there getting more specific and the word we heard from the senator about bipartisanship obviously is critically important, and i think all of this was a game changer when the fiscal commission came out with its products and i think the work in the fiscal commission and the gang of six is the model for how we move forward. so the problem that i see right now is that the clock is ticking and we will hear this shortly from jean who just walked in the the focus shifted from the large comprehensive multiyear budget plan what we do about the debt ceiling and i think there's a lot of risks. we will lift the debt ceiling before august 2nd and i voted we but lifted after and i might as well because i can't figure out how to make money if we have a fiscal crisis whether we would have won, but we are not going to have the big comprehensive plan as a part of the debt ceiling in all likelihood. what we are probably going to

have is something that deals with the low hanging fruit as much as it as we can get done and will be a reasonably large headline number, 2 trillion the was, i don't know, we can do a lot of baseline. we already talked about, and some kind of budget mechanism perhaps something like pearson put on the debt targeting charter and that's all good. nobody would pay a trillion dollars that's important. but there's too big risks there and one is, and i think it's great we have a lot of folks from the financial markets but more and more as i am talking to people on the markets say it's not the headline number that is going to matter to be the world matter whether the entitlements are part of this because i will show whether there is the political will to do something real. and the second point is if we go to the election of having resolved any of this, you can call it the opportunity for the mandates on how to go forward, but it is going to be an opportunity for all these tough issues to become really, really toxic. and so i think in all likelihood on the debt ceiling is going to be very hard to get fundamental entitlement reforms for the real

tax reforms as part of the deal. so i think we have a big risk that seems to be much harder if we move this after the election. one quick point on economic growth because i'm glad chairman bernanke brought it up and glassman brought up. there's compromise on how you look at fiscal consolidation beyond the numbers do add up. we know we have to say trillions of dollars over a decade and you want to do it in a way that is smart for the economy and both sides right and left have important points here. one on the left, you don't want to decimate the part of the budget that is public investment. you want to find a way to shift from the budget and on the right of course during tax reform in a way that is smart rather than stupid will be conducive to economic growth but what i would warn against that concerns me is if we start building it into the consumption, we should let annie growth reva icing on the cake and have that be the extra bonus we have for fiscal consolidation. so i think the big challenge going forward is one, how are we going to do this and get this done and number two, we should

talk about the fiscal consolidation but not as a way that replaces the need to make it tougher choices. .. >> for me to be a part of this panel took enormous courage, and i have many colleagues who will not sit around this table because of the partisanship that's happened in washington, will not step up to the plate and will not talk about these issues even in a bipartisan or nonpartisan way which i think is important to take into account, and it echoes some of the things that dade -- david brooks brought up we have clients in my own firm that go from one end of the political spectrum, pension funds, union pension funds, toav thee other end; institutionalpe investors, hedge funds and very wealthy individuals that are very conservative. and so to be here and to have

the private sector involved in this debate, i think, iso, critical. here and to have private sector involvement in this debate is critical. i also think it's a consequence that there's not more of this year because of the political rhetoric we're now hearing. i just want to underscore that point i've heard, former cover mishkin, which is key to this issue is so. >> just a quick word of the importance of growth and how that change is. >> one of the most interesting things is what we found out in the 1990s and it was not anywhere near what their situation is today is as the deficit is smaller we get more dirt investment almost to the extreme in the 1990s with technical. i certainly believe we can think

thoughtfully. i agree very much with my comments about how we structure deficit reduction to encourage docents bob talked about earlier down the road because reforming tax policy is critical and a lot of us, larry and i would agree on a lot of things we might not agree on otherwise on tax refunds in terms of encouraging growth. the american public could agree on not giving her a framework. same thing with the structure of spending cuts. i think that is where our hearts are decades beyond these ideological and political debates into the economics and heart of the matter and that is building a more sustainable long-term. >> one-word answer here. even the policies, what is the potential growth quakes >> given her policies? my current intention is about the same as larry's two and a half. i speak we could get it up to 3%. >> great segue into gene sperling. >> thank you.

i am sorry he could not be here at my initial time, but we were i don't know if it's six or seven of the fighting group. it won't surprise you to know that i'm not going to reveal too much or negotiate here. but i will say the following. it is a very serious process. there was a real seriousness and purpose in the room. everybody at the table takes it very seriously comes very well prepared and goes line by line through the details. and so, the talks are -- they are tough, but they are positive and progress continues to be made. let me just make a few general points. number one, we should be engaged in this process and seeking a

bipartisan down payment on deficit reduction regardless of whether or not there was a debt limit issue. it is important for us to show that -- the american public and broader markets that despite our deep divisions in washington, we are capable of coming together to make progress on getting our fiscal house in order and showing we can live within their means. i think that would be a very positive development. the progress in the 90s was not made all in one swoop. it was the combination of the 1990 budget agreement, 93 budget agreement, 1997 and a commitment to save surplus for social security. so, make a mysterious down payment, making important

progress matters and we send a very important signal. so we should be doing this regardless of whether or not there is a debt limit issue. that said, nobody should use the default of the united states as a threat or attack for their wretched agenda no matter how admirable or noteworthy that agenda is. no one should ever use the first default of the united states, with our legacy starting with alexander hamilton as acceptable foreign of a political or negotiating tact to it. i can come in a matter how were the fair and objective is. i can't come president -- our strategy this year was to get to

the first initial budget and as soon as i that was over to come forward and get a bipartisan negotiation going forward. getting the first part and took much longer than we would have liked for many people would have liked. but that was done on a friday night and on the next wednesday, the president put forward a 12 year plan to get to $4 trillion in deficit reduction. that plan was very detailed in some aspects such as the deficit cap, what we were doing on health care spending in the out years through our mechanism. in other places which is made clear we willing to hit important targets in medicare and medicaid and other mandatory is. and i think it sends an important signal that we were willing to look at all the major budget categories as part of a

comprehensive deficit reduction plan. we did say and we do believe social security should be dealt with in its own right and it should not be looked at as a means for dealing with the five or 10 year deficit problem. but the president, as he always has encouraged a serious bipartisan negotiation and compromise on continuing this is a rocksolid and solvent benefits for future generations as a has-been for past generations. as a think you are just seeing here, we are not -- we are not apologetic about the fact that for us a deficit reduction plan is not a means and an end, but is a component of a strategy to grow our economy and a way consistent with values, which is

to have a growing middle-class in which success in our economy is not based on the accident of your birth, but your ability to client and the ability of a multiethnic society chubais and be part of a growing underclass without pushing anyone out. that is the ultimate goal and we believe a strong deficit reduction is a critical component of that strategy. but it is also important to ensure that we are investing in the future and it's also critical we do so in a way consistent with encouraging a strong recovery at this point. those are parts of a strategy that not only can go together, and they should go together. let me make one point on the investment partner. i have heard for over 20, 25 years the discussion by so many people around this table as to why we as a country one is to have a strategy to deal with the baby boomer retirement.

and truthfully, we were in a position when i left my last year the clinton administration where we were on track to deal with the retirement of the baby boomer generation in a way that was not going to pass on significant debt to the next generation. i won't go into how we lost her way, but i will say the following. part of the goal and purpose of that was to ensure that the strains of an older part aging society did not prevent us from investing in our children, and research, innovation and the things that have helped make our country great. so the notion that is part of the strategy, it fits well. to cut those parts of domestic spending that are fundamentally about investing the productivity

and innovation and research of the future to me counters much of the fundamental goal and has been able to get our fiscal house in order. part of the goal was to ensure we did not start the investment in our children and education can i innovation. so to say that it doesn't matter or that it's actually a positive thing to be cutting those parts of our budget to levels that we have never seen on record for not since the 40s or 30s should not be part of our strategy. and in fact, one of the things that we need is for people to make clear that not all spending is the same and to make the tough choices about those things that are critical to giving people opportunities to commit ensuring the children's chances in life are not over determined

by the action of their birth and make sure we are still investing in basic research and innovation that has helped us lead the world for generations to come. the issue -- i will say that there's no question that one of the most difficult aspects right now is whether or not when we are looking a comprehensive deficit reduction, revenues can even be at peace on the table. i want to point out that that is the norm for a serious bipartisan budget agreement. it was what happened in 1982, 1983 and social security, 1986, even the tax reform its revenue niche overpays taxes on them, lower than others. 1990, 1993. in 1997, even though they were not a revenues, there is an agreement to continue revenues through 1997. prime minister cameron has in

his serious, some feel too far it budgets in the u.k. includes a dollar of revenues for every $2 of spending cut budgets in the u.k. includes the taller of revenues for every $2 of spending cut budgets in the u.k. includes the taller of revenues for every $2 of spending cut budgets in the u.k. includes the taller of revenues for every $2 of spending cut of revenue for interest savings. the reason this is important is for three reasons. one, it is hard for the members to work with our revenues. i think some of the most unfortunate parts of the house budget agreement, the house budget -- the house budget plan were driven by the fact that without revenues they were forced to cut far too harshly in some areas, particularly affect change the least fortunate and most vulnerable. secondly -- beyond the numbers not working out, for those of us who have been involved in major deficit reduction plans, we know

the following. it is never popular. it succeeds because it is kind of equally painful for everyone in the way people think is fair. that sense of shared sacrifice is how those who vote for a budget agreements get the moral authority to ask for sacrifice. we are a democratic administration and in our framework we have put over $100 billion in medicaid savings. we hope that our flexibility that will not impact people too harsh. the fact is we are essentially asked in everyone to be part of the sacrifice. one loses their authority to arrest the sacrifice of everyone at the same time those who are being asked to take a pinch or to sacrifice in the short term for a long-term benefits feel that their sacrifice could've

easily been avoided if it had not been for tax relief to the most fortunate. so it's not just about the numbers working now. it is being able to tell everyone that everyone has to sacrifice. if again you can success that all of your sacrifice would've been unnecessary had it not been for extending tax relief are the most fortunate, it makes the tough and difficult choices that elected officials have to ask of their current situations were difficult to do. finally, we need the sense of shared medical sacrifice, the sense that when people go back to their roots that support them, to the people on their side and explain why they did some very difficult things, they can say it was mutual, that everybody held hands and do difficult things together that they could not have done alone. the people compromised on

long-standing positions not because they wanted to, but because it was the only way you could get divided government to work together to do something larger and better for the american people. it is very difficult to do that is a huge opponent such as revenue is completely taken off the table. so my last point and then i'll step is just to say whether we were the south, our sense of shared sacrifice should not be that if the toughest races become too difficult we do fault to ask of those who are most unfortunate, those with the least economic and political power to take the overwhelming the overwhelming the overwhelming. and i asked that those -- and i suggest that it should be except to pull in our dialogue for those of us to suggest how to

tear any of the numbers can pass millions of people their health care without being accused of being political. if one looks at the medicaid savings being asked, 770 billion in the house republican plan, 35% savings in 2021 off the projection, 31, 5%. by 2029, nearly half. two thirds of the savings of those funds go to people in nursing homes or families with serious disabilities. if you want to -- that must mean it shows you can have savings without significant unless you were to take it off from the

other third reaches 40 million or more. to suggest that is to just suggest to numbers on the map, and the tyranny of the map below for another outcome. to raise that issue should not be off the table were considered demagogue. there must be a way that we can have a discussion about what the impact on people is. i have not used any freezes. i have not used any political jargon. i am just suggesting that the numbers in that particular area worries me deeply from a policy. thank you. >> thank you, gene. just before you came in at the suggestion to three to one ratio, republicans have given various the exploration that democrats have given. respond to that. >> i'm sorry, what is the one that given?

[inaudible] >> i have not gotten that e-mail yet. [laughter] i have not gotten that twitter. i have not gotten a phone call. but that would be -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> -- disadvantage, poor, veterans. it's all been there. there we had the same point. i like cheney. he's a great guy. if this goes back to that, we'll never make anything. read the report. i know one thing and not share with you. >> senator, i did not, and one-word. and if i had, i would've done so so in a complementary way that yours represented the type of balance plan but you agreed with

all the details are not, that we should be aspiring to. >> i sat here and i'm fascinated. everything you spoken about the disadvantage, vulnerable to people on social security we particularly direct our remarks to that. when the commission report was given for the five republicans, five democrats and one independent, nothing came from the president. nothing. and i'm not talking about specifics or anything else. you're a great guy, but let me tell you, that goes right back to the same stuff for the republicans to come in and saved it a go again.

if you torture statistics fun enough, eventually they'll confess. [laughter] and if you're going into that game, three to one or four to one or 10 to one, you'll never get there. but we had not a single witness that said we would get out of this with the then double gross for two decades. not one single witness. we sat there for a year. i was here for 18 years and i couldn't believe what we have now in the situation of the cleverest possible ways to stick it to each other. >> emulator air? >> it doesn't matter for those. they can't avoid commission report. you can't avoid it.

>> well, senator, in all fairness, i didn't mention medicare in my remarks. i said we needed to come together. i said what i thought conditions were for bipartisan compromise, that we'll had to be able to move fast. i suggested why the position that you have not taken, that you could not have any of revenues was harmful to both the shared sacrifice and the numbers adding up a little shared sacrifice that he would need to get a more significant deficit reduction bill. ali mentioned was one program. it is not a program. cannot mention it because there is political advantage to it. i mention it because it's the reason i came into public service was a confused mess

privileges to defend those who have less privilege. these are the poor children in our country. all i said -- always said, senator. i didn't say anything about your plan. ali said was on that plan but i hoped we didn't go there. [inaudible] >> senator -- >> this is completely unfair to be put in a position of defending himself in the flag. this is one of the problems that budget cycle who want to have these kinds of discussions. someone actually says here's what might be going on, it went well, you're not saying it the right way. jean is the only one in this room who was in the meetings. as someone of his term has been involved in negotiating this kind of deals currently in government. and i think it's unfair. to say you disagree with them.

>> i just don't know. >> senator since then, going to go at jean who was kind enough to join us to finish his remarks unencrypted could post it it that whenever a with closing comments of those who would like to make. >> terrific at a capable time in weekend -- i'm sorry that my arrival changed that, but i did not use any of those phrases and i do think we should be able to have those discussions about what the impact is. i believe very much in bipartisanship. i believe very much we have to compromise agreed in budget negotiations with, you know, people who i disagree with, like senator kyl and congressman eric cantor, that they come to the table every day with a sense of seriousness, very well prepared

that we are trained very, very hard to find enough agreement so we can make progress. again, i think that is very important. we do have disagreements. i don't think expressing those in a civil way were talking about the potential impact, again, i mentioned one aspect that i think i mentioned because it doesn't get much political coverage and it's not considered a political issue, but something i'm worried about. and i compliment the fence and plan in that i think it did a very good job of trying to ensure that whether you agree with all the aspects are not there was shared sacrifice and there was not a sense of putting a disproportionate amount on those of low income. i want to say again, i believe we as a country people have to be willing to move off their

dime in past positions is included. but you have to do so together in a has to be a sense of mutual compromise and mutual shared sacrifice and that was the main point i was trying to bring. we will have differences and i think if they could be expressed in a civil way that's all the better. but i am not going to forego the ability to say where i'm deeply can turned when things are going to hurt those that i think are less fortunate nor insane not to live mean to impugn the motives or the intent of anybody who might be a different position. i think, for example, going back to my initial point. things in the house republican budget that were there because

they had no choice because they have hated no revenues. they were forced by the tyrannies of the numbers to go deeper in areas that make us as many them would referred. but i stay with my caveat, which apparently got me in trouble here, which is not that we should avoid pressure on revenues or medicare or anything else, but again as we do that we do not put a disproportionately negative impact on those who have the least economic and political power. >> i thought i had a press arguing

there is the fiscal crisis that is real and that is what a lot of us spend a lot of our time on and then there is a life crisis that most of the people in america are trying to solve because their home, their job paying for their kids college is out of control and what we have been is a big debate pulling people in both directions were some people are saying in the middle of my life crisis on the world can we deal with cutting my medicare and my social security, my programs for kids and at the market prices the usa we are going to have to do these things because if not we will have a much worse problem. i think people are dealing with two very logical competing interests as they do with immigrations and other things and they get pulled apart which is why bipartisanship becomes important because someone has to try to bring those two things together. once we pull people apart they just go back and forth and back and forth as we all do in this room. i just want to make five pointed think we need to think about. one is on the question of shared sacrifice. the reason the millionaires tax

pulled so well is not because people understand what the it millionaires back does.dersnd is shared sacrifice. somehow people in's tax this coy think some people got off the hook easier than others duringoo this whole life crisis that ther are having and so shared sacrifice is important. having. shared sacrifice to support change. one of the things i want to say is i had only a few we didn't have major corporations were fixing the tax system and lowering rates to pay a dime in shared sacrifice. i think that's right. it's not right for the future. we should lower the rate, get rid of the exclusion. all of a sudden peter orszag is looking a lot smarter basis lets all the tax cuts expire because democrats have to think that we really want to take away people's programs piece by piece, but by little, cut, cut or their bigger things we could do like that in all the tax cuts expire that may just be an easy

way to do with some of these things by providing more shared sacrifice in a much broader way? to less points, one is the democrats no health care pram. i don't like iran's plan. i don't think it works for the market, but it works radically. i'm going to take the beard and are simply which will take me for saying that when he testified in the fiscal commission, talk about defective in france and france pays 6% less in the united states as did every other major industrial nations pay 6% less gdp. we would solve a lot of problems to 6% gdp. we can't have the discussion that i'll pay her single-payer or know some major corporation listed than any other country partners but somehow is off the table to a discussion of how to save 6% gdp. the last thing i say is jean stirling should be our master. the choice has to be better than the alternatives. it is not good choices for his good choices.

we saw that in the tax code. it was better to have the bush tax cuts for everyone for the rich continue because we also got something in return we have to set up a situation where what we're doing is better than the alternative and unfortunately that is where crisis is coming into place. >> alright, i think we have to have a fun time. john burbank commute to a minute. >> okay, sovereignty is about having choices. redoing a good job of paying so much. if this goes on much longer. at her choices made before 2012 i do think political motivation was there. it really is that there is bernanke paints prices. i wish you were here to let these -- this meeting. it matters a lot whether or not he actually. if he does not do that, prices

will fall. as prices fall, everyone will ask restaurant in how we fix this? the pressure will be back on congress. congress has had a pretty easy since bernanke has taken these actions. you have to recognize the connection. the markets right now assume -- pretty much assume it's going to have been. the question is when. they assume will happen sooner because that is bernanke's dna. i think if you are responsible, he with that asset prices fall and pressure would shift to congress. he's given a hall pass. there's one other problem that energy and food prices will rise and will have a different problem than they have no energy policy in this country unfortunately. >> look at the united states for this witness other countries for fiscal consolidation.

i have one that is perhaps worth mentioning. i will mention two, perhaps three. first, quarters of growth. growth is paramount and fiscal adjustment. there is a statue d. and trent gdp ratio of 1%. after 10 years, the jet to ddp relationship will be down 10%, 30%. but i fully agree one cannot feel the fiscal adjustment on the expectation that growth will increase because it will not. so one has to be cautious and then enjoy the benefits. second point comes out very clearly for the expansive fiscal consideration. you have to put every enough to table and be selective both on the revenue side and expense side.

i'm not taking views of how much will be on the spending side. but i know that both on the spending side and the revenue side are good measures and bad measures. on the revenue side, they are reducing taxes. on the spending side, again there is good spending and that spending. one is to avoid any made him sound like in canada, an approach of cutting across the board and then only in 1994 and 1995 they started having a select approach of the fiscal program worked. so one is to be selective. the last point i wanted to make, the last lesson is if we look at all these cases the fiscal adjustment in the past, we see the fiscal adjustment is implemented only after interface start increasing. and the challenge for the united

states is to start implementing cisco adjustments because the right time to do it is when the economy is not suffering from any interface. >> thank you. to use a military analogy, i think the debt ceiling issue is a live fire as we would say. it's not a trail. into the extent that we can impress upon the american people it is a live fire exercise, i think we've done a good day's work. secondly, people i don't think are aware that this is not a situational deficit. this is a structural deficit is going to have to go to the structure and the tax code and auditor things we talked about. the third thing i'd like to say very briefly as the 1960s to the case for my district in tennessee, where the united

states supreme court said for the first time that apportionment of congressional seats this is just a civil issue and was a matter as due process. well, they turn it over to the legislatures and it didn't take people in office in those days long to say this is a good deal. i give you my and were both happy. today, 49 years later they're only out of 435 in the house that are in the hypothetical margin of a 50/50 voting pattern. i was there from 1989 to january and i saw the metamorphosis occurred, which means members who are coming here now are crippled politically because they are let kadima party crime areas for the most partisan semblance reside. they are understandably responsive to that end they come crippled to come into what i

believe i would call the sensible center and work on solutions to our country's problems. if they do, they are blasted by their voters for being ideologically untrue, and pure or whatever. you brought it up, but that is a problem. we're going to see it again this year and is gerrymandering is going to accord for any public purpose, so to benefit one political party or the other. it is a system that is broken and we've had -- blue dogs have had it before congress, we do have a house-senate -- a senate sponsor. until you fix that, i don't know how the members can actually exercise good judgment to go south sunday american first, not as a democrat or republican. >> thank you.

[applause] >> jim glassman, a buck and a to have tv needs a minute 30. >> you can time it. i want to associate with gene sperling economics. deficit reduction is not a means to an end, but a component in a growth strategy. and absolutely is a critical component. that is when here. that's what i believe in the work of the committee for possible federal budget. it is not the icing on the cake. it is the case. a virtuous circle -- a virtuous cycle that can be established where, as we just heard, increased growth lures with that she ddp ratio, which lessens the headwind of the constraints on growth and on and on so all are merging. i just disagree with bob reischauer.

we can change it overnight would have a huge effect on development of human capital in this country. there's lots of things we can do. i think this congress has been absolutely terrific, but i just hope we don't lose sight of the context in which deficit reduction occurs. >> jim, i can't let you go. what is the right potential macros? >> it's an advertisement for man institute, which has had a conference two months ago. lee lindsey was there, which kicked off what we call the 4% project. some people consider 4% aspirational. maybe it's right to make history, maybe it's 3.5, but it's not 2.3. that is what the cbo same going forward. it'll be 2.3 of our policies don't change. >> so growth is discussed as an important part there. inflation is another important

factor and one that many point to as a way out of this problem and everything is solved. the problem with that as well nominal gdp goes up, as we saw in the first quarter it doesn't mean much for growth at all. it's a good economic policy. additionally, revenues may go up, but spending goes along with it. deficits don't actually improve under a high inflationary environment. than a look at inflation is an option of the layout. inflation is just not an option. >> ought to think panelist members of the round table. the responsible federal budget for bringing this together. [applause] it has been my pleasure to be here today. >> i'm just going to say a quick thank you doesn't want to thank all of our panelists who are here. it was a fascinating afternoon a depressing afternoon and encouraging. every time i hear members talk i

think about how the country really is ready to hear the message of how we can move talk i think about how the country really is ready to hear the message of how we can move been i agree with gene's point that has to be shared sacrifice for the move forward policy move been i agree with gene's point that has to be shared sacrifice for the move forward policy lies in political ways and i think a deal has to be big enough to fix the problem. i think the country is ready for the message. just excise, but if you're ready for a drink. waiver section across the way. thank you. carbonic [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for the day. we will have an hour of general speeches before starting debate on the nomination of u.s.

district court judge for oregon. they will vote on that nomination at noon eastern before recessing for the party lunches. members will return at 215 and begin debate on the nomination of leon panetta to be the next defense secretary. the final vote is set for 4:15 eastern today. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer.

the chaplain: let us pray. you come to us, o lord. into our poverty comes your wealth. into our emptiness comes your fullness. into our fears comes your peace. into our ugliness comes your beauty. empower our senators to prepare themselves for your coming. remove any barrier that will keep them from experiencing your presence. lord, give them more than human wisdom so that justice, truth and peace

will prevail. come to us, o lord, and make us instruments of your peace. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., june 21, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of

rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable michael bennet, a senator from the state of colorado, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: following any leader remarks, the senate will be in morning business until 11:00 a.m. today. the republicans will control the first half, the majority controlling the final half. i would ask at this time, mr. president, that the morning business hour be a full hour, not stop at 11:00. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the filing deadline for second-degree amendments is s. 2 s 782, the e.d.a. bill is at 11:00 a.m. this morning. following morning business, the senate will be in executive session to consider the nomination of michael simon to be united states district judge in oregon. at noon, there will be a vote on confirmation of the simon

nomination. following that vote, the senate will recess until 2:15 p.m. today for the weekly caucus meetings. at 2:15, the senate will consider the nomination of leon panetta to be secretary of defense with two hours of debate. at about 4:15 this afternoon, senators should expect up to three roll call votes. first on confirmation of the panetta nomination. the second will be cloture vote on the e.d.a. bill. and if cloture is not invoked, there will be a third vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the presidential appointment efficiency and streamlining act. i might note that this or some version of this, we have been talking about this for a long time, when senator mcconnell and i were both whips, we talked about this legislation, spent a lot of time on it. mr. president, this afternoon, we'll have a cloture vote on the reauthorization of the economic development administration, a law we have depended on for more than 50 years. this is the fourth jobs bill democrats have brought to the floor this year.

i do hope republicans will not allow it to be the fourth jobs bill to wither on the vine thanks to their obstructionist tactics. this is a good piece of legislation with decades of helping american businesses and economically distressed to innovate, grow and to hire. in the last five years alone, the economic development administration has created 314,000 jobs and has successfully turned every $1 in federal investment into $7 in private sector investment. it's good legislation that will create good jobs for americans who need these jobs. unfortunately, that's not enough to win bipartisan support among the republicans here and the district of columbia now who are more interested in destroying medicare than creating jobs. the small business innovation research bill was a good piece of legislation, too. that also died in the senate last month under a pile of unrelated amendments. the bills the senate passed this year reauthorizing the federal aviation administration and

reforming america's patent system were good legislation also. they would have created or saved about 480,000 jobs and that made it out of the senate alive, but now they are languishing in the republican-controlled house. mr. president, will the economic development authority suffer the same fate? i hope not. here 24 hours ago, i presented to the american people and to the senate the myriad of amendments that have been filed in regard to this legislation. a lot of them have been offered but filed. i read about 40 of them, dealing with different types of endangered species. the lesser sand dune reptile -- i don't remember what it was, but all kinds of nonrelated amendments. global warming, post office

reform. as i said, mr. president, almost 100 amendments, i read 35 or 40 of them here yesterday, having nothing to do with this legislation, nothing. so i hope we don't have another bill that's blocked, the fourth this year if they do that. it would be clear they are more interested in this right-wing ideology than creating much-needed employment. none of the 90-plus amendments -- i repeat, only one of which my staff was able to find had any germaneness to the bill, and that's one that the chairman of the committee, senator boxer, would agree to anyway because it was offered by senator inhofe. this is an important piece of legislation. this legislation will put hundreds of thousands of people to work. so today's vote is again about

priorities. americans have been very clear, job creation is their number one priority and number two priority, their number three priority. democrats chair that priority. republicans obviously don't. we'll never stop bringing jobs bills to the floor and we'll never stop fighting the other side's obstructionism to try to get them passed. again, republicans have a different priority, it appears, and that's ending medicare, and that's too bad. they have worked hard to block three bills that could have created and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs during tough economic times, but they pushed even harder for the ideological plan to kill medicare as we know it. the republican plan would put insurance company bureaucrats between seniors and their doctors. every senior would pay $6,400 more for health care in the first year alone. and it would force more than seven million seniors to pay more for cancer screenings, wellness checks and treatments at the beginning of the year. americans have been clear about this, they have been very clear.

they have resoundingly rejected this ideological plan to hurt seniors. republicans think it's a bad idea, democrats think it's a bad idea, and of course the independents think it's a bad idea. and this is -- all polls show this. unfortunately, i haven't heard a shred of evidence that my republican friends here in congress are getting the message on medicare that the american people have gotten weeks ago. today they will have a chance to show the american people once again whether they heard the message on jobs. i hope they have because so much is at stake and america's watching. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday, i came to the floor to report that there were several miners in my state trapped in a mine as a result of floods. i want to start with an update on that situation. i'm happy to report that all three were rescued after

spending 14 hours trapped in a bell county coal mine. they were all reunited with their families last night, which is great news. the families were waiting for them at the west cumberland baptist church, and we're certainly glad this particular story had a happy ending. on another matter, this morning, i'd like to say a word about the upcoming vote on the debt ceiling and the bipartisan negotiations surrounding it to reiterate why we're having these talks and what must -- what they ought to achieve, but first a little context. right now, ratings agencies are threatening to downgrade u.s. debt, putting us on red alert that the kind of economic crisis we're seeing in parts of europe could very quickly happen right here. we know that failing to do something significant about our fiscal problems would be a serious drag on jobs and our economy, and that's why over the past several weeks i have come to the floor of the senate and spoken up at press conferences with a now-familiar refrain, the

time to act on significant reforms is right now. and i have been crystal clear about what qualifies as significant. above all, it means doing something to strengthen and preserve our long-term entitlement programs so that we can actually keep our promises to those who have been paying into those programs for years, and so these programs don't end up consuming every single dollar we take in. entitlements are the biggest drivers of our debt. by definition, they have to be a part of any plan to lower the debt. this is hardly a controversial view. everyone from the president on down has said that entitlements must be reformed if we have any chance at all of reining in our debt and strengthening our long-term fiscal health. in fact, 30 months ago, 31 senate democrats signed a letter urging him to put together a plan to reduce the deficit, a plan they said they hoped would

include entitlement changes. 31 members of the democratic conference right here on the other side of the aisle. including the occupant of the chair. as the occupant of the chair put it recently, i think it's absolutely clear that we have to redesign our entitlement programs. here's how senator durbin put it a few weeks ago. we have serious economic problems ahead of us if we don't have some reform in both medicare and social security. this was from former president bill clinton after a recent congressional election in new york. quote -- "i don't think the democrats or the republicans should conclude from the new york race that no changes can be made in medicare." that's president clinton. or that no changes can be made in social security. that's president clinton. that no changes can be made that will deal with this long-term debt problem. here's president obama's lead negotiator on the debt talks, vice president biden, from last

january -- "everyone talks about we have to do something about social security and medicare, and we do." that's the vice president of the united states. here are the two cochairs of the president's debt commission, erskine bowles and alan simpson in a recent op-ed in politico -- "a credible plan must address the growth of entitlement spending." here is the president himself. "to presoirve long-term fiscal health, we must address the growing health in medicare and social security." that's the president of the united states. as for me, i have been clear on this same point in public and private the moment i stepped out of a meeting with the president and other meet members on may 12. so it is not exactly a groundbreaking observation. they have to involve entitlement reform. since no one believes we can actually get at our fiscal problems without it.

this is what serious people expect and are hoping for out of these talks. the moment rirks as i've said for weeks, three things. real cuts in spending over the short-term; that is, over the next two years, not more spending increases or freezes. second, real cuts over the medium-term, that is, over the next ten years, with enforceable caps on spending. and, third, meaningful reforms to entitlements which are the major drivers of our debt. that's the definition of a significant package. now, some democrats are insisting that they'll only agree to cuts if republicans agree to raise revenue. that's washingtonspheek for tax hikes. and the it's absurd. first of all, is there anyone outside of washington, d.c., who really think that with 14 million people looking for work

in this country, the solution to raise taxes? does anyone seriously think that's a good idea? the last thing you want to do in the middle of a jobs crisis is raise taxes. even the president said as much. it's just common sense. remember the president signed the extension of current tax rates back in december with a similar argument. but even if we weren't in the middle of a jobs crisis it would be foolish and completely dishonest. we're in the middle of a debt crisis right now because we spend too much. the solution is to spend less. how do we know this? well, for 30 years beginning in 1971, federal spending as a percentage of the economy has averaged 20.8%. that's federal spending as a percentage of the economy. but after two years of out-of-control spending by the president and his democratic allies in congress, government spending is now projected to

rise a full four percentage points above the historic norm. now, that may not sound like a lot, but 4% of a $14 trillion economy is an enormous amount of money. just as the economy sank, democrats increased government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. and now they want to make it permanent. that's the reason we've got a deficit like we do. government spending has gone up, and a bad economy has caused revenue to go down. that's the reason the debt has gone up 35% since the president took office. and now democrats want to use the bad economy as an excuse to lock their spending levels in place. they want to use it as an excuse to raise taxes, which would only make the economy worse, cause us to lose even more jobs, and make

it even harder to create new jobs. so let's be clear about what's going on here. right now washington is borrowing $4 billion -- $4 billion -- every day above p what it collects in taxes. and democrats want to admit -- don't want seem to want to add might -- don't seem to want to admit we have a spending economy. we're a national debt the size of our entire economy -- we have a national debt the size of our entire economy and democrats are wondering whether they want-to-to do anything about the biggest drivers of the debt. look, democrats can continue to argue among themselves about whether to step up and address this crisis they've helped to create, but they can't argue about what's causin causing it. or what'sed intoed to address t republicans have been crystal clear about where we stand and democrats have also been crystal clear about what's needed for

these talks to be a success. it is my hope that they consider their own past statements on entitlement reform as we approach the end of these talks. the path to success is clear. let's not let this opportunity to do something significant go to waste. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minute mins each with the dime equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final havmen half. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i rise to join the senator from massachusetts, who will shortly introduce the product of many hours of bipartisan cooperation and negotiation ands, an authorization for the limited use of military force in libya.

the resolution, as will be introduced by my colleague from massachusetts, will be for the, as i mentioned it would authorize the president to employ the u.s. armed forces to advance u.s. national security interests in libya as part of the international coalition that is enforcing u.n. security council resolutions in libya. it would limit this authority to one year, which is more than enough time to finish the job. and it makes clear that the senate agrees with the president that there is no need and int no desire to commit u.s. conventional ground forces in libya. i will be the first to admit that this authorization is not perfect and will not make everyone happy. it does not fully make me happy. i would have preferred that this authorization make clear that our military mission includes

the president's stated policy objective of forcing qadhafi to leave power. i would have preferred that it urge the president to commit more u.s. strike aircraft to the mission in libya so as to help bring this conflict to a close as soon as possible. and i would have preferred that it call on the president to recognize the transitional national council as the legitimate voice of the libyan people, so as to free up qadhafi's frozen assets with the transitional national council to use on behalf of the libyan people. i've called on the administration to do all of these things for sometime, and i do so now again. that said, this authorization has been a bipartisan effort. my republican colleagues and i have had to make compromises, just as the senator from massachusetts and his democratic

colleagues have had to do. the end result, i believe, is an authorization that deserves the support of my colleagues in the senate on both sides of the aisle, and i'm confident they will support it. now, i know the administration has made it clear that it believes it does not need a congressional authorization such as this because it is their view that u.s. military operations in libya do not rise to the level of hostility. i believe this assertion will strike most of my colleagues and the americans they represent as a confusing breach of common sense, and it seems to be undercut by the very report that the administration sent to congress which makes clear that u.s. armed forces have been and presumably will continue to fly limited strike missions to suppress enemy air defenses, to operate armed predator drones

that are attacking qadhafi's forces in an effort to protect libyan civilians, and to provide the overwhelming support for nato operations. from intelligence to aerial refueling, indeed, we read into today's "new york times" that since the april 7 date, that the administration claims to have ceased hostilities in libya, u.s. warplanes have struck at libyan air defenses on 60 occasions and fired about 30 missiles from unmanned drones. mr. president, i ask inclusion at this time in the record the article of today's "new york times" entitled "scores of u.s. strikes in libya followed handout to nato." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i certainly agree that actions like these do not amount to a full-fledged state of war, and i would certainly grant that i am no legal schol scholar. but i find it hard to swail lee that u.s. -- swallow that u.s. armed forces dropping bombs and

killing enemy person necessarily a foreign country does not amount to a state of hostilities. what's worse, this is just the latest way in which the administration has miss handled its responsibilities with regard to congress. the president could have asked congress to authorize our intervention in libya months ago, and i believe it could have received a strong, though certainly not unanimous, show of support. the administration's disregard for the elected representatives of the american people on this matter has been troubling and counterproductive. and the unfortunate result of this failure of leadership is plain to see. in the full-scale revolt against the administration's libya policy that is occurring in the house of representatives. as i speak now, our colleagues in the house are preparing a measure that would cut off all funding for u.s. military operations in libya, and they

plan to vote on it in the coming days. i know that many were opposed to this mission from the beginning, and i respect their convictions. i myself have disagreed and disagreed strongly at times with aspects of the administration's policy in libya, but at the end of the day, i believe the president did the right thing by intervening to stop a looming humanitarian disaster in libya. amid all of our arguments over prudence, legality, and constitutionality of the administration's policy in libya, we cannot forget the main point: in the midst of the most groundbreaking gee yow political event in two decade, as peaceful protests for democrats were sweeping the middle east, with qadhafi's forces ready to strike at the gates of benghazi and with arabs and muslims in libya hand across the region pleading for the u.s. military to stop

the bloodshed, the united states and our allies took action and prevented the massacre that qadhafi had promised to commit in a city of 700,000 people. and by doing so, we began creating conditions that are increasing the pressure on qadhafi to give up power. yes, the progress towards this goal has been slower than many had hoped. the administration is doing less to achieve it than i and others would like. but the bottom line is this: we are succeeding. qadhafi is weakening. his military leaders and closest associates are abandoning him. nato is increasing the tempo of its operations and degrading qadhafi's military capabilities and command and control. the tran sailings national council -- the transitional national council is gaining gaig international recognition and support and performing more effectively and though their progress is uneven, opposition

forces in libya are making strategic gains on the ground. we are all entitled to our opinions about libya policy, but here are the facts: qadhafi is going to fall. it's just a matter of time. so i would ask my colleagues, is this the time for congress to turn against this policy? is this the time to ride to the rescue of a failing tyrant when the writing is on the wall that he will collapse? is this the time for congress to declare to the world, to qadhafi and his inner sticker l, to all of the d. inner circle torque all of the libyans who are trying to force qadhafi from power and to our nato allies who are carrying a far heavier burden than we are is is this the time for america to tell all of these different audiences that our heart is not in this?

that we have neither the will nor the capability to see this mission through, that we will abandon our closest friends and allies on a whim? these are the questions every member of congress needs to think about long and hard, especially my republican colleagues. many of us remember well the way that some of our friends on the other side of the aisle savaged president bush over the iraq war, how they sought to do everything in their power to tie his hands and pull america out of that conflict. we were right to condemn this behavior then and we would be wrong to practice it now ourselves. simply because a leader of the opposite party occupies the white house. someday -- i hope soon -- a republican will again occupy the white house, and that president may need to commit u.s. armed forces to hostilities. so if my republican colleagues are indifferent to how their

actions would affect this president, i would urge them to think seriously about how a vote to cut off funding for this military operation could come back to haunt a future president when the shoe is on the other foot. the house of representatives will have its say on our involvement in libya this week. the senate has been silent for too long. it's time for the senate to speak. when that time comes, i believe we will find a strong bipartisan majority that is in favor of authorizing our current military operations in libya and seeing this mission through to success. that is the message that qadhafi needs to hear. it is a message that qadhafi's opponents, fighting to liberate their nation, need to hear, and it is a message that america's friends and allies need to hear. so let's debate this authorization but then let's vote on it as soon as possible.

mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from massachusetts for his hard work on this resolution. i understand he will be introducing it immediately. and, mr. president, i hope that the majority leader of the senate will schedule a debate and vote on this resolution as soon as possible. it is long overdue. mr. president, i yield. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. the senate is in a quorum call. mr. kerry: i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: i see another colleague who is waiting for time. i would like to proceed for such time as -- i ask unanimous consent i be able to proceed for such time as i might use, but it won't be much over the ten. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: i thank the chair. mr. president, i want to thank the senator from arizona for his, i think, important and courageous comments that run counter to the political currents of the day, some of which have been expressed in the

other body and elsewhere, and i thank him for thinking about the strategic interests of the country ahead of some of the political interests with respect to the next election. there are many occasions where this body has behaved very differently when a president, either republican or democrat, has engaged american forces in one way or another without the authorization within that 60-day or even outside of the 60-day parameters of the war powers act. the fact is that we had a number of military actions, panama, libya in 1986, grenada 1983, iran 1980, haiti 1993, persian

gulf 1987-1988, lebanon 1982, and then subsequently kosovo 1999, bosnia 1992, somalia 1992, which didn't have this fight about authorization. and, in fact, only iraq in 2003, afghanistan in 2001 and iraq in 1990 were authorized prior to our engagement. the fact is that four of those that i mentioned ended before the 60 days had expired, but the others didn't. bosnia, kosovo and somalia all went beyond 60 days, and the issue was never raised. so i think it's important for us to put this in a context, if you

will, and to measure some of the realities of the choices that we face with respect to libya today. we will shortly this morning, a little later, be introducing this resolution. it is a bipartisan resolution, democrats and republicans joining together to put in a very limited authorization with respect to our engagement in a support role, not any directing agent but a support role only, and it is limited to that support role. now, mr. president, i am particularly familiar with the debate and with the war powers act itself over these years because that was a debate that took place specifically in response to the war that senator mccain and i were both part

of, the vietnam war. the war powers act was a direct reaction to that war which was at that time the longest war in our history until now, afghanistan. ten years in duration, over 58,000 americans lost their lives, and it spanned several administrations -- kennedy, johnson, nixon. and the fact is that as a result of that war in which we never declared war, the congress wanted to assert its appropriate prerogatives with respect to declaration of war and the engagement of american forces. so the war powers act was passed. the war powers act very specifically created this dynamic where the congress had 60 days to act, and the president could deploy troops for a period of 60 days without their action, and if they hadn't

acted, the inaction itself would require the president to then withdraw troops, so it didn't actually require the congress to act but it created this 60-day period. the fact is that any congress, any member of congress during those 60 days could bring a resolution to the floor denying the president the right to go forward. nobody did that in the past 60 days, i'm glad to say, and we're now beyond those 60 days. it is not without precedent, incidentally, that we have authorized an action much later. in fact, i think one action was specifically authorized about a year. that was the action in lebanon, about a year after they landed, it was authorized. so we're within days of that in terms of this discussion. but let me read specifically what the war powers act said. it said -- "in the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which the united states armed

forces are introduced into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances." i think the operative words, the critical words here are united states armed forces are introduced into hostilities. now, you can argue, as people are -- there is an article in "the washington post" today, there are other articles. people say, of course, we're in hostilities because hostilities are taking place, bombs are being dropped. but that's not, in my judgment -- even though i support the war powers act, i think -- and president obama incidentally has supported it here, which is unique from other presidents, but the fact is that just because hostilities are taking place and we are

supporting people engaged in those hostilities does not mean that we are ourselves, in fact, introducing troops into hostilities. no american is being shot at. no american troop is on the ground or contemplated being put on the ground. so the mere fact that others are engaged in hostilities and we are supporting them i don't believe automatically triggers what was contemplated in the aftermath of the vietnam war. now, that's not the principal argument, frankly, that we need to be having here. what we really need to be doing is looking at the bigger picture. i don't think any country, the united states, the u.n. or any nation ought to be drawn lightly into any kind of military intervention. i have always argued that here.

but in my judgment there were powerful reasons for why the united states should have joined in establishing the no-fly zone over libya and forcing qadhafi to keep his most potent weapons out of the fight, and if you slice through the fog of misinformation and you weigh the risks and the benefits here alongside our values and our interests, which are always at stake, i think the justification for the president's involvement, for our country's involvement and for our supporting it are compelling and i think they are clear. what is happening in the middle east right now, mr. president, could be the single most important geostrategic shift since the fall of the berlin wall. it has profound implications for united states expenditures, for united states military engage ment in other parts of the

region. it has significant impact on the threats that we will face, on the potential strategic risks for our country and for our interests in terms of that region. absent united nations nato resolve, the promise that the pro-democracy movement holds for transforming the arab world, the whole arab world and all that that could mean to the united states in terms of hopes for peace between israel and palestinian, hopes for a different set of relationships, hopes for restraining wahabi-ism, hopes for diminishing the levels of religious extremism, hopes for reducing the amount of terrorism, all of those things are contained in this awakening, in this transformation that people are trying to achieve. an effort which i believe and others believe would have been

crushed if the hopes of the pro-democracy movement were simply ignored and we turned our backs on them. i can't imagine -- i mean, just think about the consequences. qadhafi says i'm going to show no mercy, i'm going to go and we're going to kill those dogs, dogs who have risen up and expressed their desire to have fundamental freedoms and rights, and he's going to go into benghazi and he's going to annihilate anybody who is in opposition to him. we already saw him pulling people out of hospital beds. we already saw him attacking women, rape as a tool of war, dishonoring people in the muslim world has a consequence for life. we saw what he was doing. are we really serious that in the wake of the gulf states, in an unprecedented request saying to us we want your help, in the wake of the arab league, in an

unprecedented request, asking for u.s. and other western engagement in their part of the world to stand up for these rights. we would simply say too bad, so sad, go about your business, we have got better things to do. the consequences would have been extraordinary. remember, president clinton said his greatest regret of his presidency was that he didn't engage in rwanda and prevent, which we could have done at very low cost, prevent what happened in the genocide in rwanda. that's his greatest regret. and how many senators have gone to israel, have gone somewhere else in the world where we say to people with respect to the holocaust never again, never again. do the words only apply to one group of people or do the words have meaning in terms of

genocide? in terms of wanton killing of innocent people at the hands of a dictator. so what is the cost to us of this great effort? i believe that other dictators would have seen the failure to challenge qadhafi as a complete license to act with impunity against their people in any other place. the vast majority of the protesters in these countries are simply trying out for the opportunity to live a decent life, get a job, provide for a family, have opportunities and have rights. abandoning them, i think, would have betrayed not only the people seeking democratic freedoms, but it would have abandoned the core values of our country, and i can hear now, i can hear it, some of the same people now who are complaining about the president being involved would have been the first people at the barricade complaining about why the united states didn't stand up for our values and how feckless the

president was that he wasn't willing to stop a dictator from coming at these innocent people. you can hear it. everybody in the country knows that's exactly where we would be. now, why there and not in syria? a legitimate question. there are different interests and different capacities. the reality is that the gulf states asked us to come in. the arab league asked us to come in. and we knew who we were dealing with with respect to the council and the players, and there are a whole set of uncertainties with respect to syria, even today, that distinguish it both in terms of what we can assert and what we can achieve. and sometimes both in foreign policy and in domestic policy, you're elemented to what you can achieve and to what is doable in a certain situation. i believe that if we had simply

turned our backs, as some people are now arguing we ought to do now, which would be the most reckless thing i've ever heard in my life. at a moment when the pressures are mounting, when people are achieving their goals, when qadhafi's forces have been reduced, when many people in our intelligence community and the nato intelligence community are saying there's progress being made and the vice is tightening, we would suddenly just pull the rug out from under that -- that's extraordinary to me. snatch, snatch, defeat from the jaws of victory. i believe -- you know, i can't tell when you it might hangars mr. president, but i'm absolutely confident it's going to happen. qadhafi is finished. ask the people in the cufnlt even his own supporters are reacting out of fear. and the truth is that the vice is tightening because every day that goes birks the opposition gets stronger, every day that goes by, he has less ability to

manage the affairs of the country itself. i think that if we simply send the message that the house of representatives is kwon templating today, it -- is contemplating today it would be a moment of infan me frankly -- of infamy frankly because it would reinforce the all-too-common misperception on the arab street that america says one thing and does another. we're already spending billions of dollars in the fight against extremism in many parts of the world. we didn't choose this fight. everybody knows that, mr. president. it was forced on us, starting with 9/11. and to fail to see the opportunity of affirming the courageous demand of millions of disenfranchised young people who have been the greatest recruits for al qaeda for the extremism,

for any of the extremist united stategroups,to not affirm theirw to try to push back against the repression and oppression and to try to open up a set of opportunities for themselves, for jobs, for respect, for democracy, i think, to turn our backs on that would be ignorant, irresponsible, and shortsighted and dangerous for our country. it would ignore our real national security interests and would help extend the narrative of resentment towards the united states in and much of the west that is rooted in colonialism and furthered by our own invasions of iraq and afghanistan. remember, mr. president, the pleas for help didn't just come from the libyan rebels. and this isn't something that we just cooked up here at home with some desire to go get engaged somewhere. it came from the arab league, which has never before asked for this kind of assistance. it came from the gulf states,

who have never before said to the west, we need your help to come intervene. even at the hand of their own leader, it seems to me that if we had silently accepted the deaths of muslims, we would have set back our relations for decades. instead, by responding and giving the popular uprising a chance to take porks i think the united states and our allies cent message of solidarity to the aspirations of people everywhere and i believe that will be remembered for generations. the particular nature of the madman who was vowing to show no mercy to his own people, to his own fellow muslims, the particular nature of this man who was going to go after the dogs who dared to challenge him and his role in the past, i believe, mandated that we

respond adds we responded in a stunningly limited way. i do think our colleagues from nothenew jersey and other staten new england need to reflect, i think, on the fact that qadhafi was the man behind the bombing of pan am 103 claiming the lives of 189 americans and the intervention in libya, in my just a minutejudgments, sent sen that they can't automatically assume that they can simply resort to large-scale violence to put down legitimate demands to reform without any consequences. i think u.n. resolve in libya can have an impact on future calculations and indeed i think the leaders of iran need to pay close attention to the resolve that is exhibited by the international community, and i think we need to think about that resolve in the co context f

our interests in iran. now, mr. president, the resolution that we will submit, senator mccain and myself and other senators, is absolutely not a blank check for the president, not at all. it is a resolution that authorizes limited use of american forces in a supporting role. i want to emphasize that. there's only an authorization for a supporting role. it says specifically that the senate does not support the use of ground troops in libya and the president has stated that that is his policy but we adopt that policy in this resolution. it authorizes the limited use of american forces for a limited duration, and it would expire one year from the time of authorization. this resolution envisions action consistent with the letter that the president sent to congressional leaders on may 20

in which he specified that the u.s. participation in libya has consisted of nonkinetic support of the nato-led operation including search and rescue missions. mr. president, i think i asked for such time as i would iewrks but i'll try and tighten it up here. so, mr. president, the administration informed congress last week it doesn't consider the use of u.s. forces to rise to the level of hostilities. and i've already discussed that. i think there is an important constitutional question here, but it is not a new question. the truth is that presidents, democrat and republican be, have yon taken limited military afntle i mentioned each of those instances. think think debate is healthy. but the words we use about it has consequenc consequences. they send a message. i think none of us should send any message to colonel qadhafi

lightly. the last message that any united states senator wants to send, in my judgment is that all he has to do is wait us out, all he has to do is wait for the congress, even as the progress is being made an the vice is tightening because we're divided at home. i think passage of this resolution would be an important step in showing that the country and the rest of the world and particularly showing to moammar qadhafi that the congress of the united states and the president of the united states are committed to this crit cannel deavor, and i officially believe the counsel son the strongest footing when the president and the congress speak with one voice on foreign policy matters. so i hope our colleagues will support this resolution. for 60 years, mr. president, we've been working to build a cowho's saifnedz consistent alliance with our partners in nato. many times our military and political leaders have

complained. our european allies have not carried their share of the burden this a, that americans have paid too high a price in blood and treasure, that we've led while others followed. earlier this month second secretary gates warned the alliance sat risk because of distaste for front line combat and he said the united states was not going to carry the alliance as a charity case. well, mr. president, here's the alliance leading. here's the alliance doing what we wanted them to do for years. and here all of a sudden are members of congress suggesting that it's okay to pull the rug out from under that alliance. that, would, think i really toll the bell for neigh toavment i think we need to sigh the realities of the strategic interests that are on the table here and proceed forward. will we stand up for our values and interests at the same time? will we support the legitimate aspirations of libyan people and

i think, mr. president, our own security ultimately will be strengthened immeasurably if we can assist them to transition to a democracy. the cost now will be far, far less than the cost in the future if we lose our resolve now. mr. president, i thank my colleague for his generous allowance. extra time. thank you. mr. johanns: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: mr. president, over a year ago now the president signed into law health care legislation that we are finding is certainly long on promises but short on sound policy. unfortunately, the legislation did not follow a transparent or a thorough process. instead, was hastily rushed through on a premise that has now become famous. as said by speaker pell low

circumstance we have to pass it to see what's in it. now, almost daily, newspapers, constituent mail, and independent reports continue to reveal that the law's promises are not reality. recently the collumious dispatch told -- the columbus dispatch told the story of a family. two years ago their struggles to find health insurance coverage outraged this administration. in fact, their hardship was specifically used as an example of why we needed to get the health care system reformed. well, party afilllation did not define how we felt about this family. we all empathized and sympathized with their struggles and recognized the need for basic health insurance reform. but, unfortunately, we did not harness that common ground to develop sound policy that

addresses the very real problems within the health care system. instead, a bitterly partisan bill was shoved through congress and now we're stuck with its consequences. so what are the consequences for the family who strugged to get -- struggled to get insurance? the article reports that their annual premium has increased a whopping $12,000. clearly, one result of the law is soaring premiums. president obama promised no fewer than 20 times he would cut premiums by $2,500 for the average family by the end of his term. but, unfortunately, this is not an isolated story. this broken promise is evident in homes all across this great nation. mail from frustrated nebraskans continues to flood my office. they question how a health care

law that cost so much yet still allows skyrocketing premiums could have ever passed. a single mother from belleview, nebraska, recently found out that her family's health care premium increased by $700 per year. her insurance provider explained that it was due to the mandates of the new health care law. she pleaded with me, please stand up on behalf of single moms like me. we do all we can to hold our world together, to give up time with our children to work two jobs, and now this. how am i supposed to maintain health insurance for my family," she writes? well, i wish i could tell constituents that their premiums won't go up, as the president promised. i wish i could tell them that the new health care law addressed the rising costs of health care, as the president promised it woovment instead,

these stories reflect what the experts predicted if the law passed. the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimated that individual health insurance premiums would increase by an average of $2,100 per family due solely to the new mandates included in the law. that puts the gap between caned obama's promise and president obama's health care law at an alarming $4,600 per family. the administration's own medicare actuary expects health care costs to increase $311 billion over the next decade under the new law. nrvetion the actuary testified -- in fact, the actuary testified that the president's program that the health care law would lower costs was -- quote -- "false more so than true." some may say you might just wait

until the law is full implemented. that's when the promises will be fulfilled. but i continue to get reports on my desk forecasting the negative consequences of this irresponsible and shortsighted piece of legislation. for example, one of the law's major flaws is that half of its new health insurance coverage is achieved by locking millions of people into an already broken medicaid system. yet, the "new england journal of medicine" recently released a study showing those on medicaid struggle to find doctors to treat them. the medical journal's research revealed that 66% of individuals who mention medicaid's children's health insurance program, when called to schedule a medical appointment, were denied an appointment for their child. that's compared to only 11% who said i have private insurance.

that's right, those on medicaid's chip program were six times more likely to be denied an appointment, and when medicaid was accepted, the children had to wait on average 22 days longer than those with private insurance. researchers blame low medicaid payments, delays in paying, bureaucratic red tape for all of these problems. as a former governor, i can tell you that these problems have long plagued the medicaid program. yet in 2014, the president's new law dramatically expands medicaid, dumping 24 million more americans onto this very broken system. so how can the president promise guaranteed coverage for these millions of americans when the studies show the majority or the most vulnerable population are denied treatment under the

medicaid system? the bottom line is if you can't receive care, if you can't find a doctor to provide it, you don't have coverage. the logic simply doesn't match the promises. another recent study by a consulting group, mckinsey and company, calls another one of the president's guarantees into question. their study analyzed the impact of the health care law and employer-sponsored benefits. prior to the health care law, america's employers were the backbone of our nation's health care system. they provided $165 million americans with coverage. the mckinsey study found that 30% of employers would definitely or probably stop offering their employees health insurance after 2014. during the health care debate, supporters of the law insisted that the law builds on the principle of employer-sponsored

coverage. the president even repeatedly promised if you like your plan, you can keep it. again, an empty promise. according to the study and others that came before it, employees will be stripped of their plans that they like and dumped onto the new law's health care exchanges. now, i realize there is disagreement surrounding this study, so let's just appeal to common logic. the more you know about the law, the more you conclude it just doesn't make sense for employers to offer a health care plan. beginning in 2014, the health care law mandates that employers with 50 workers offer health insurance coverage or pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker, and with this mandate comes a whole slew of other requirements while suddenly dropping coverage

and paying the penalty becomes an economic necessity and it's cheaper. during the health care debate, i spoke on the senate floor about this issue. i and many others warned that the proposed penalties had a perverse incentive. when you do the math, and i said back then, there is no penalty at all compared to the cost of private insurance. in fact, it's a business decision if you're worried about the bottom line, you save money by paying the premium or paying the penalty. that's how the law encourages employers to dump their employees. a deloitte consultant told the associated press, and i'm quoting -- "i don't know if the intent was to find an exit strategy for providing benefits, but the bill as written provides the medical nism." john deere has responded by -- the mechanism."

john deere has responded by saying they will look into just paying the fine. not surprisingly, employers are doing the math. at&t reported that its its $2.4 billion cost of coverage would drop to to $600 million if they just paid the penalties. estimates reveal caterpillar could save 70% on health care costs by eliminating coverage and paying the penalties, and the list goes on and on. prior to its passage, the congressional budget office predicted 7% of employers would drop their coverage. now studies in business logic are challenging that estimate. this may mean that the c.b.o.'s projected cost of health care is too low. that's right, the $2.6 trillion cost estimate is too low, if you can imagine that. the president promised the bill

would lift the burden off the middle class. it hasn't. unfortunately, time is predicting -- confirming what we predicted all along. the case for repeal of the health care law is stronger day by day. i will do everything i can to overturn these negative consequences. i believe americans deserve better. one thing they deserve, that promises made be promises kept. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: madam president, thank you. i want to talk a little bit about the flooding going on in montana. it has been going on basically for better than the last month. the picture i have here is a picture of the musselshell river

east of roundup. the river channel is not in this area. in fact, it is on the far side of this river. my guess is -- i haven't seen this. this picture was taken about ten days ago or so. my guess is it's still flowing like this. for a number of reasons, i want to address it in my speech today. over the past few months, we have seen severe flooding in montana that has impacted our homes and businesses. it's devastated farm land and ranch land. it has displaced families across our state. the flooding has tested thousands of montanans and the basic services and infrastructure that they rely on every day. but when disaster hits montana, we rise to the occasion. when i meet the families and the community leaders affected by flooding and when i toured their towns, i do not see a resignation or hopelessness. i see resilience.

i see our traditions of hard work and working together. i see communities that are rebuilding and moving forward. ordinary people and local officials working diligently with local, state and federal partners to address urgent and ongoing needs that they are unable to address alone. thanks to that spirit of working together, maybe to maybe, montana communities are rebuilding and businesses are reopening. we're looking to account for the severe crop damage and livestock loss suffered by montana areas farmers and ranchers, and we're looking for resources to make up for the $8.6 million in damages to our state's infrastructure. sadly, that number is only getting bigger. montana's resiliency is going to be tested because we're not out of it yet, not even close. given the unusually significant snow pack in the rocky mountains that has yet to melt, our rivers and streams will continue to swell. the cost to montana communities and families will continue to

mount, and more and more of them will look to emergency assistance to provide timely services and assistance to those most in need to help them get back on their feet. that is why i am particularly alarmed by the looming shortfall in fema's disaster relief fund which the house left dangerously unfunded. even amid a string of weather-related disasters across this country that has led us to 45 declared disasters. we're now looking at estimates of nearly $2 billion to to $5 billion shortfall for fiscal year 2012 alone. the total need is estimated to be as much as $6.6 billion. montana is still tallying up the damage. the risk of further damage is still very high, and yet we do not know right now if there will be enough money left over to meet the needs this disaster has already created in our state of montana. the house thinks that we should

pay for past disasters with fungal kateed for current and future disasters and by cutting assistance to firefighters and other first responders. madam president, in roundup, billings and elsewhere in montana, the folks who are rescuing stranded residents in boats to take them to get urgent medical care aren't from fema. they are the same men and women who fight to protect our communities every day. the cops and firefighters who are part of these communities. taking away the resources they need won't fly. it is irresponsible and unacceptable. i want all of my colleagues to understand the importance of what we're facing, not just nn montana but across this country. there are 45 declared disasters around the country. it is time to do our part for communities all across this country who are facing unprecedented disasters from floods to tornadoes to wildfires. let's make sure this nation's emergency responders have what they need to do their jobs.

they are doing their part for all of us. tough economic times have forced us all into some very difficult decisions, there is no doubt about that, but it is critical that we do everything we can on behalf of the communities and families across our nation who are simply looking to pick up the pieces, to rebuild their homes, their schools and businesses and to get back on their feet. when small businesses can't get back on their feet and when our number-one industry, agriculture, gets a punch during the growing system, our entire economy will be impacted in a negative way. montanans will continue to be resilient and they will continue looking out for one another, but there are some burdens that are simply too big for them to bear alone. it is time for congress to stand up, do its part, and the sooner the better. i look forward to working with chairman landrieu and ranking member coats on the homeland security appropriations subcommittee to make sure that no community, in montana or anywhere else in the country, is left wondering if the government will make good on a commitment to help them rebuild.

with that, madam president, thank you very much. i yield the floor. madam president, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask unanimous consent -- i ask unanimous consent on two points. one, to speak as if in morning business for seven or eight minutes. and number two, that my remarks that i'm going to give now be placed in the record at the debate of the nomination of judge simon. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today the senate will consider the nomination of michael simon, nominated to be u.s. district judge, district of oregon. this nominee was reported out of the judiciary committee with four votes in opposition. i'm one of those who oppose the nominee and would like to detail

my reasons for doing so. mr. simon received his b.a. suma cum laude from university of california los angeles in 1978 and j.d. cum laude from harvard law school in 1981. he began his legal career as trial attorney with the antitrust division justice department. in 1985, he spent six months as special tant u.s. -- special assistant u.s. attorney for eastern district virginia and argued one appeal before the fourth circuit. mr. simon joined a large law firm as an associate in 1986. since 1990, he has been a partner and head of litigation for the firm's portland office. throughout his career, mr. simon has advocated on behalf of the american civil liberties union of oregon as a pro bono attorney but his involvement in the aclu goes beyond mere representation of a client.

mr. simon has been a member of the aclu of oregon since 1986. he is an active member of their lawyers committee and served as a board member from 1997 to the year 2004. he was the vice president for legislation 1997-1998 and vice president for litigation years 2000-2004. now, i recognize a judicial nominee should not be evaluated solely on client lists or memberships. that would be very unfair. however, these are relevant bits of information about a nominee, so i'd like to have my colleagues listen to the words of one of my democratic colleagues who inferred that the aclu is beyond a moderate or mainstream approach. this was stated during the debate on judges nominated by president bush -- quote -- "if you look at the record of these judges and you put scales left

to right, ten being the most liberal and one being the most conservative, these judges referring to judges appointed by president bush are --quote, unquote -- ones to be charitable when bill clinton nominated judges, he nominated mainly sixes and sevens, people who tended to be more liberal but moderate and mainstream. few aclu charter members. much more prosecutors and partners in law firms." end of quote from a democratic colleague of mine speaking during the bush administration on bush judges. my colleague recognized that aclu lawyers were beyond mad moderate and mainstream. i would rank this organization also as very liberal. in mr. simon's case, there has

been one concern about whether or not he shares the farout views of the aclu. on this question, mr. simon refuses to provide a clear answer. at his hearing he stated that -- quote -- "we do not necessarily agree with all of the positions taken by the american civil liberties union." end of quote whvment asked in follow-up question to describe the legal policy positions with which he disagrees, he argued that his advice to the aclu was confidential and subject to attorney-client privilege. in a second round of questions, committee members clarified they were not asking about advice to a client but policy positions with which he disagreed. this was met with -- quote -- "i'm not at liberty to describe the legal or policy positions advocated by the aclu with which i disagree."

end of quote. the aclu does hold very liberal views, and mr. simon has been the voice for those views. for example, mr. simon wrote a letter to the courthouse in oregon expressing the aclu's concern with religious christmas signs and decorations. the letter encouraged the county to repeal its resolution that deemed that specific county -- quote -- "a merry christmas county. qulings "on issue after issue, mr. simon refused to disassociate himself from legal or policy positions held by the aclu that are far out of the mainstream. this includes legalization of drurks the unconstitutionality of the death penalty, the unconstitutionality of the pledge of allegiance, the aclu's opposition to tax exemption for churches, and extreme views regarding separation of church and state. mr. simon's views on the war on

terrorism and a liberal view on civil liberties are troubling to me. in a speech in 2007, mr. simon argued that americans' civil liberties have been threatened because of measures undertaken following 9/11. in his speech, he said -- quote -- "our thinking would be clearer and our solutions more effective if we stopped thinking about and stopped calling terrorism a war or a crime and argued that calling military action against terrorism a war -- quote -- "implies that a military conquest is the best tool for this fight" -- and that's the end that have quote. and that -- quote -- "that terminology may limit more creative and even more successful tech negs to promote and protect our security." end of quote. perhaps mr. simon agrees with the attorney general who on 00 recent speech asserted that our most effective terror-fighting

weapon is the article 3 civil court system." i disagree with that assertion. well, i ended the quote from the attorney general. i certainly disagree with that assertion and i think most national security experts, our military and most americans would disagree as well. mr. simon appears to approach constitutional theory with an activist slat, so i want to comment on that particular point. in remarks before a conference sponsored by the oregon lawyer chapter of the american constitution society on may 23, 2007, mr. simon stated -- quote -- "there is also support for the conclusion that the founders did not believe that their intentions and understanding should bind future generations." that may be the only real original intent of the founders. and so that makes me wonder, after quoting him on that and considering that point of view, why he thought the constitution

writers spent so much time during that summer of 1787 and even longer periods of time getting the constitution adopted if it wasn't going to have anymore hold on future generations than maybe just for that one year. that seems to be the implication of what he says there. it is no surprise then that mr. simon has a hostile view of religious in the -- religion in the public square. he continues in those remarks, "there's also support for the proposition that the concept of separation of church and state was an unfolding and evolving idea at the time of the founders." end of quote. mr. simon appears to demand an absolute wall of separation between church and state as opposed to the government of the united states promoting a specific religion. now, he has organized against

religious display on public land, against religious visitors to schools, against a coach praying with his football players. i assume that means even if you're praying that they don't get injured. mr. simon has argued that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in public school science classes. based on his views regarding the war on terror, his activist approach to constitutional interpretation, his hostility to religion in the public square, and his remarks on advocacy of ideas which indicate a legal view that is outside the mainstream, i oppose this nomination and ask my colleagues to do likewise. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. grassley: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: and i'd ask unanimous consent that the time be divided that we're in quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination. the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, michael h. simon of oregon to be united states district judge for the district of oregon. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be one hour for debate equally divided in the usual form. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, today the senate will finally consider the nomination of michael simon to fill a judicial emergency vacancy for the district court for the district of oregon. mr. simon is one of the most highly regarded lawyers in the country. he spent five years as a trial attorney at the department of justice during the reagan administration, including a stint as a federal prosecutor, three years of volunteer judge pro tempore on an oregon county court. the -- this nomination has had

the strong support of his home state senators, senator wyden and senator merkley, since he was nominated nearly a year ago, and he's twice been reported by the judiciary committee with signature bipartisan support. i mention that because tra durablely somebody like this would have gone through almost the first day after he was reported. i do thank the majority leader and the republican leader for finally scheduling this vote. but it is unfortunate the republicans objected to considering this nomination when it was reported last year. that meant it had to be taken back, we will to spent the time, the money -- taxpayers' money -- to consider it a second time by the judiciary committee and had it to be reported again earlier this year. now, it should not have taken more than four months since the committee reported mr. simon's nomination for a second time for the senate republican leadership

to finally consent to debate and a vote. this is finally the last of the judicial nominations reported last year that of course should have been considered last year. but now after six months of unnecessary delay, the people of the district of oregon may finally see a long-standing judicial vacancy filled by a highly qualified nominee who has always had bipartisan support from the days he was working for the reagan administration. the senate may finally be able, six months into the year, to focus start to focus on nominees who we're considering this year. now, you take nominations, you consider them one year, then delay them to, don't allow them to go in that year, put them in the next year, and say, oh, we're moving right along here. well, not really. we're doing it more than a year

later and it is only the latest demonstration of those on the other side who say the majority leader can simply call up nominations are wrong. senators know that's not true. if that was true, awful these people would have been considered and voted on last year. now, some senators may seek to avoid responsibility for the senate's historically slow pace, and incidentally, it is an historically slow pace, of confirming judicial nominations and claiming their hands are clean. but they know it requires consent to avoid extensive delays. mr. president, i've been here since president ford, president carter, president reagan, first president bush, president cline trg--president clinton, second president bush, now president

obama. during that time, no president has had to put up with these unseemly delays except for president obama. i wonder why that's so different for this president? never did it with any of the other five. -- or six that i've served with. and i can speak only from my own personal experience. but they know, those who want to delay it that there's no -- moving forward to addressing the ongoing judicial vacancy crises -- and it is a crises -- requires cooperation. it requires the minority to work with the majority and set side partisan differences for the good of the american people. last week the senate was able to get consent to confirm the first two judicial nominees since may 17, even though almost a score of qualified nominees have been waiting confirmation since that day. in addition to the simon

nomination, there are 19 judicial nominations currently pending on the senate's executive calendar. of those 16 are by anyone's definition are consensus nominees. seven were nominated to fill judicial emergency vacations. in this senate we always move quickly on judicial emergency vacancies. these are the kind of nominees in past years would have been confirmed within days of being reported to the senate. instead, extended delays now burden every nomination for the republican leadership finally consents, if it does, to take up nominations. we should not need to file for cloture on these consensus nominees, and that's what's been required by the minority, by the republican minority. incidentally, when we file for cloture, on many of these we

filed for cloture and got a vote and it passed overwhelmingly. we should have regular votes of president obama's highly qualified nominees instead of more delays. we should also restore the senate's tradition. and this i can speak as one who has seen that tradition for 37 years of working to clear the calendar pending nominations before a recess. contrast that tradition with what the senate did before the memorial day recess when no judicial nominees were confirmed. if we were to take positive action just on the nominees that receive unanimous support in the committee -- that is every single republican and every single democrat vote ford them, sraeubg -- voted for them, vacancies could be reduced to 80 since the beginning of the obama administration. those who delay or prevent the filling of these vacancies must

understand they're delaying and preventing the administration of justice. you pass all the bills we want to protect the american taxpayers from fraud and other crimes but you can't recover if you don't have judges. if the mounting backlog of civil and criminal cases are growing larger. you know, i think of the first two years of president -- last president bush's term in office. during those first 24 months, democrats were in charge for 17 of the 24 months. some of the months the republican majority never even bothered to hold a hearing on president bush's nominees. but in 17 months, the democrats held hearings and confirmed 100 of his nominees. to their credit, in the next 24

months the republicans in charge confirmed 101 for those days. progress in those nomination has been hampered by misplaced controversy of the nominees' records. the supposed controversy resulting in the delay of michael simon is the result of republicans seeking a partisan litmus test in place of our sworn constitutional duty to have advice and consent to a nomination. what was it mr. simon did wrong? he filed amicus briefs on behalf of several jewish organizations. this is now going to be a, something that says you cannot be a federal judge if you filed amicus briefs on behalf of several jewish organizations, including the first amendment,

on behalf of aclu, involves the first amendment of discrimination against gay individuals. he filed briefs to protect the rights of religious minorities. mr. president, in my state i'm a member of a religious minority. i would think if somebody stood up for me, that doesn't make him unfit to be a federal judge. but that's what they're saying. file briefs on behalf of these jewish organizations, file briefs on behalf of religious minorities, and somehow that makes him unfit to be a federal judge? that should make him even more qualified. our legal system is an adversary system. it's predicated upon the legal advocacy for both sides. certainly defending civil liberties is no vice. we ought to be proud of people

who defend our civil liberties. the question before me about mr. simon is the same question i asked about all judicial nominees, whether he or she will have judicial independence. i don't care what their politics are, who they represented in the past. all i want to know is will they have judicial independence. will they understand the role of a judge and how that differs from the role of an advocate. the judge has to protect nerve their courtroom, on -- has to protect everybody in their courtroom, on both sides. i have no question that michael simon is going to have judicial independence. i hope senators set side their partisan litmus test and join me in supporting this fine nomination. mr. president, i see my two friends, the two outstanding and distinguished senators from the

state of oregon, and i would yield the floor to them. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from or ofrplt. mr. merkley: i -- the junior senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, judicial independence is extremely important in having a court system that can both be effective and carry the faith of the citizens of this nation that they have a system of true justice. mr. president, i rise in support of the nomination of michael simon to the post of u.s. district judge for the court of oregon. quite simply, michael simon is a man of enormous integrity, intellectual breadth and depth. michael earned a reputation as a top lawyer in commercial

litigation, appellate law and constitutional law. he is respected nationally. he is eminently qualified for this seat. after graduating summa cum laude from ucla, mr. simon attended harvard law school where he graduated cum laude. he began his legal career in the department of justice's antitrust division where he served as a trial attorney for five years. during this time, he also volunteered for and served as a special assistant u.s. attorney for the eastern district of virginia. mr. simon is currently a partner of perkins and kuhey where he worked since 1996 and earned a reputation as a legal star. he has engaged in pro bono work and volunteered for many nonprofit organizations. he has served as an adjunct faculty member at lewis and clarke law school teaching antitrust law and drawing on his earlier life experience.

he has served as a pro tempore judge in a circuit court. in the courts, michael has made his name as a staunch defender of consumer protection, antitrust laws, and the first amendment. he has found the time to be deeply involved in his community displaying a commitment to volunteerism. for years michael has been a participant of the classroom law project, which allows you to be entkaeupblged in our democratic society. serving as president and a board member, he has helped bring a love of civics and democracy to thousands of public school students across oregon 0. in addition to his service in government and civic organizations, mr. simon has been an active member of the jewish community in oregon.

he is a committed member of beth israel and served on the jewish committee and jewish federation of greater portland. in short, michael simon exemplifies a trace that every federal district judge should possess: a brilliant legal mind, a heart dedicateed to service, fairness and community. the u.s. district court of oregon has historically had a reputation as a place of efficient and fair courts led by outstanding professional jurists. i know that michael simon will uphold this tradition. he'll be an outstanding judge who will continue the district's tradition of fairness and commitment to public service and he will fill a critical vacancy in this district. michael simon is an excellent nominee, and i urge all of my colleagues to reflect on his record, his capacity and multiple dimensions throughout

his life that brings seasoned judgment, the independence of mind to the judicial system. i urge my colleagues to support his nomination. thank you, mr. president. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, senator merkley has said it very well this morning. i had a chance to speak about michael simon yesterday, and i want to just make a few additional remarks this morning. after the retirement of senator hatfield, who we all know is still beloved by many here in the united states senate, i have had a chance to work with our former colleague, senator gordon smith, and now with senator

merkley to send to both republican and democratic presidents some outstanding men and women for their consideration for the district court in oregon. today senator merkley and i send to the senate for its consideration today another outstanding individual, someone who's going to take his place with the other leaders that have been named to the district court of oregon. michael simon is one of those persons who, when you look at what kind of jurist you want to have, he meets all the essential tests. he is a thoughtful man. he is a fair man. and he's an individual who always wants to have all the

facts in front of him before he makes a reasoned judgment. and when i look at his background -- and senator merkley has laid out several of the areas that we're especially proud of. his work in the private sector, perkins kuhey, i come particularly to his work in consumer protection and the antitrust field because it highlights the kind of person michael simon is. he made one of his most notable contributions to strengthening consumer protection law working on behalf of department of justice in the case of the united states vs. american airlines. and he successfully argued for extending the reach of the sherman act tpo include pho

tpho*pl sherman act to exclude monopolization. this is an issue that helps all americans -- all americans, regardless of their political philosophy or the party they belong to -- benefit from the fruits of a more competitive american marketplace. and michael simon's work in that area benefits each and every one of us every single day. second, as i talked about yesterday and senator merkley has described eloquently this morning, we're very proud of michael simon's championing work as a volunteer. i could tell you, mr. president, it seems that virtually every good cause that comes across my desk at home seems to have michael simon's name on it urging that oregonians participate and volunteer their time. and we are especially proud of

his work on behalf of children. his work with the classroom law project, his work at the waverly children's home where he's past head of the board of directors, these kinds of positions are ones where you make a difference. these kinds of positions where you are on the board of director, waverly home, where you are part of the children's law project, means on an ongoing basis, you have a chance to teach not just right and wrong to young people, but you have a chance to give them the kind of background about the rule of law and the rights and responsibilities that we want to instill in our children. and that's why we are very proud to bring to the attention of the senate his work with oregon's youngsters. and, finally, i want to stress

the nee immediacy of the need oe senate to confirm michael simon today. this seat has been vacant for 664 days. it is just one of 36 judicial emergencies. as it stands, there are nearly 90 federal court vacancies, some of which have been empty for more than three years. and judicial emergencies are not just some sort of, you know, washington, you know, phrase to throw around on the floor of the united states senate. they are actually an emergency defined by the chief justice of the united states, john roberts. and to earn this delegation, filings must receive 600 per judge in district courts and 700 per judge in circuit courts. so justice delayed is justice denied. until the united states senate begins to move expeditiously to

fill these vacancies, justice will continue to be denied to thousands of americans who deserve due process. both senator merkley and i are very grateful to senator leahy and senator grassley, majority leader, senator reid, the minority leader, mr. mcconnell, for their work to bring this nomination to the floor. and, mr. president, i hope that colleagues who have questions about senator simon -- about michael simon will come to senator merkley and myself. we will stay on the floor and be available to colleagues to answer any questions. but this is a good and decent man who possesses all of the requisite qualities that we would like in a jurist whether it is his work in the private sector, whether it is his pioneering work in the field of

extending the reach of the sherman act to deal with monopolies. this is a person who will reflect great credit on the district court of oregon, on the legal system of our country, and i hope all our colleagues will support michael simon today. with that, i yield the floor. mr. chambliss: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i rise to support the nomination of leon panetta to be the secretary of defense. he has a long history of government and private-sector service an experience, including service in the united states army. director panetta served ably for eight terms for the u.s. house of representatives, rising to be chairman of the house budget committee. he left that committee to be president clinton's director of the office of management an director and later served 2 1/2 years as president clinton's chief of staff which is where i

got to know him well. he then spent 10 years co-directing a foundation with his wife that seeks to instill in young men and women the virtues and values of public service. knowing director panetta this comes as no surprise. in february of 2009, he became the 19th director of the central intelligence agency and it is in this capacity where i've had the opportunity to work very closely with him over the last several years an consider new hampshire close friend. -- consider him a close friend. he has been an outstanding leader of the central intelligence agency and it is bittersweet to see him leave. he is a true leader in every sense of the word. he understands how capitol hill works since he served in congress for 16 years. he showed the senate select committee on intelligence which is the committee that oversees his organization the right kind of deference and responded to our questions and concerns promptly and directly. although he leaves the c.i.a. as

not leaving the administration, and i am quite pleased that i will have the opportunity to work with him as secretary of defense. i think he has the right qualifications for his new job. he understands budgets, and in this time of economic austerity, we need one with that knowledge and his ability to understand and manage the resources of a huge organization like the department of defense. in his current capacity as director of the c.i.a., he has also worked and built strong partnerships with the department of defense. having been involved in the planning and execution of numerous joint operations, including, of course, the most recent operation against osama bin laden. he will continue to ensure that these two organizations work closely together and cooperate successfully in the interest of our national security and for the safety of our country. director panetta has a very

challenging job ahead of him. the united states is involved in three major military operations overseas as well as countless smaller ones. budgets are extremely tight and they are only going to get tighter. however, no country has the global interest and global responsibilities that the united states has. and for that reason, we need a military that can protect those interests an carry out those -- and carry out those responsibilities. director panetta will need to decide how we do that and will also help decide what, if anything, the united states can and needs to stop doing. he will also need to take responsibility for shaping our military to be prepared for the future. for the last decade our military has necessarily been focused on fighting and winning the conflicts we are in, namely in iraq and afganistan. we continue to meet that challenge and i am very optimistic that we and the afghan people will prevail

against insurgents in afganistan, just as we preveiled with the iraqi people against insurgents in iraq. however, we cannot take our eyes off the future. as a nation we have a very poor record of predicting where our next conflict will come from. heard it said when secretary mcnamara had his confirmation hearing to be secretary of defense in 1961, no one asked him a question about a country called vietnam. when secretary rumsfeld had his confirmation hearing in 2001, no one asked him about afganistan. but in both cases those were the issues that would dominate their tenure as secretary of defense. if i might say, director panetta, if a new global hot spot dominates your tenure as secretary of defense, there is a good chance that it will be one that no one asked you about at your confirmation hearing. for this reason or armed forces need to be prepared to fight

conflicts unlike our current ones. we cannot and should not assume that the next war will be like the current one. we need to be prepared for both high-end and low-end conflict. and we need to be prepared not just so we can fight an win these conflicts, but so that we can deter potential adversaries and not have to fight in the first place. i know that leon panetta realizes that and i know he will continue to be committed to ensuring our military is at prepared as possible to meet whatever challenges may come our country's way. that will not be easy and it will take a man of his ability to do this successfully and in a way that takes into account our current fiscal situation. however, i believe the president has chosen the right man for the job. i support leon panetta's nomination to be the next secretary of defense and i encourage my colleagues to support that nomination as well.

and, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. oregon i would ask to say -- mr. wyden: i would ask to way associate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: i thought the statement that the senator from georgia was spot on. appreciate -- i appreciate, when we confirm leon panetta to be secretary of defense, no one can convince what kind of challenges he will face there, this is the kind of person because of his ability and background is up to handle any kind of challenge thrown at him in this office. i want to associate myself with my colleague's remarks. i would ask unanimous consent that shelby clark and damon be given privilege of the floor for june 21, 2011. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: i would note the absence of a quorum.

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