outward investment behavior by chinese companies, whether it's done by companies going to vietnam because of labor costs or private chinese companies which are disadvantaged in terms of access to venture capital and growth capital in china picking up and saying, well, to hell with it. we'll go to california and put some of our operations there, that is in many cases the motivation here. it's quite benign, in fact, and desirable from the american perspective in the same way that a lot of that european investment that built america wasn't just built in america it was turning its back on europe and saying we're going to go someplace which has a different attitude toward the role of markets and competition than we've got with all of our vested interests back home in the old world. so i think we should continue to be the new world here and not throw in our lot with some defend what we've got rather than doubledown our bet on competition and the role of markets going forward. >> two specific answers. your answers about french soe's

versus chinese soe's we could geinto the details of their operation, that's not the answer. the question isn't french soe's versus chinese soe's it's france versus china. the commercial answer about -- i think you answered your own question about encouraging private chinese investment. we would have to do something that dan doesn't want us to do to do that because the financing bias is overwhelmingly for state firms going out just like it's overwhelmingly for state firms at home. it's actually even worse in terms of going out. so, you know, i absolutely agree with you. there are -- i know a lot of private chinese entrepreneurs who feel very squeezed in the last few years and they're looking for foreign opportunities because they feel squeezed at home. guess what? they're competing with the same state firms that are squeezing at home and the same privileged access to capital and regulatory access to capital and so on and on and we would have to act, we would have to do something to change the pattern of chinese

commercial development which would require, you know, desire by the u.s. to say private chinese companies, state chinese companies bad. didn't go down that road for a reason because it's complicated and i would guess dan wouldn't probably want to go down that road. >> i think you're going to have to go down that road if you want to execute on your point of view, which is that we're going to have to make those calls. what's a government company? what's not? et cetera, et cetera. it's going to be very tough for you to do that and stick, you know, with your principles to do that. >> i don't have to stick with that. he's wrong. >> here's a broader question, global dependence on china is growing which raises the potential risk of the impact of economic fluctuations in china. could china's foreign direct investment abroad mitigate this risk in terms of the stability and diversification of china's

wealth worldwide? >> i don't know that i understand the supposition that global dependence on china is growing. you know, this gets back to global growth depends on china. if you count growth in terms of gdp china runs a trade surplus which means it detracts from the world gdp. global growth does not depend on china until china stops running the world's largest trade surplus which it has for years and years. there are some countries that increasingly depend on china. but that -- those countries are tied into chinese investment patterns. i mean, china is following -- looking for resources of various kinds, not just natural resources that feed its current growth pattern. so i don't know that chinese outward investment is going to help us diversify unless we get a decision in beijing until we change the chinese development model. not talk about changing it, they've been talking about changing it for years and consumption continues to fall and investment continues to rise. and you have more investment in

consumption you run a balance consumption. there's no way to avoid it. regional dependence on china, outward investment is not solving that problem. it's intensifying it. it comes back to an unbalanced chinese model. you change that everything else changes including chinese outward investment patterns. >> i would put it the other way around and say that this inflection that we are just now seeing of chinese outbound investment in more advanced economies such as the united states, is, in fact, exhibit a to say that something is fundamentally starting to change in the home domestic economy in china. as derek correctly said earlier, the starting point from any chinese official is, for god's sake don't take a dollar overseas unless you have to. if you can put it to work at home, put it to work at home. if you can create a job at home, create a job at home. and you get that from every village official, to mayor, to

governor right up to the top in china. that is the attitudes. it's very nativistic point of view about these things. so the fact that these companies state-owned and otherwise, are actually taking value-added activities and putting big investments overseas to do them, means that something is different about the conditions of competition, the economic opportunity back home in china. and the fact that these firms are diversifying these global position and have more of an interest in the economic growth and stability of the economies they're investing in around the world, does mean to me that i think we're in a more interdependent set of circumstances than we were before. that from beijing's perspectives, the calculus has to be different. it's not just, let's take care of what happens in china. we're not yet ready to worry about what's happening in the rest of the world, i think that china is more of a stakeholder in the quality of global growth as a result of this than it was in the past. >> really quickly, i agree with the stakeholder part but i don't

agree with the change -- where the inflection point comes in. the inflection is on china dropping from overinvestment. they are coming from weakening elements from the chinese economy from those imbalances. you might say that might signal some change in china policy. i do agree with you. i think we're not seeing a change in the chinese development model. i agree there is increasing interdependence from chinese interdependence. >> let's stay with this if we can stay with us. i think what's fascinating about china is that i don't expect -- and i've never expected policy to lead the chinese marketplace. i don't actually have as much faith in the government of china as derek seems to. i don't think it's been policy leading the way toward growth and achievement in china. mostly, it was government getting out of the way and letting people get out to work and making medallions and making things that silly americans were

willing to buy even though they had three in the garage, right? so i think the behavior of firms saying, man, margins are shrinking to nothing because of wages, because of new enforcement of environmental rules in shanghai, for any number of reasons are forcing them to behave differently and policy will catch up as it has to in china. and explain after the fact what chinese firms were supposed to be doing years ago. >> okay. here's a question is u.s. antitrust law adequate to deal with anticompetitive practices by chinese state-owned enterprises who invest here? do we need new measures? and will we have to wait until the state-owned enterprises have pushed domestic competitors out of business or damaged them severely before our laws will kick in? >> i'm embarrassed to say this, dan, because we've known each other for a while. are you a lawyer?

none of us are lawyers so that will be the problem in answering this question. i will give you the -- a very weak answer. i apologize. but, you know, we should be able to anticipate to some extent flaws in u.s. antitrust law. there are a lot of people in this room, a lot of people in this city -- there are people in this room, people in the city who know how chinese soe's behave. we have a long track record are. we know what chinese subsidies are. i can tell you what they are. if we can't figure out what they're doing, you know, what they might do, that's our problem. what i would want to get, you know -- worry about is the idea that something that we can't possibly control is going to happen. this is not a mystery. right? we know what chinese soe's do in their behavior. we should be able to anticipate it. it's not something that should take us by surprise. yeah, there might be flaws in u.s. law. i'm not really qualified to address that but i do want to fight against the idea that they're going to do something that we just can't control. i think that's wrong. >> i have not seen it

demonstrated that the competition policy challenge associated with chinese investment somehow is unique or different or new compared to the challenges that we encounter with japanese firms, that were correctly alleged to have superior access to low cast capital in the '80s, for instance, and we debated whether they should be blocked from buying u.s. assets because of that or the other point of view was if they're willing to overpay their taxpayers ultimately are going to fit the bill for that in some way or another, then all to the good of the u.s. seller of an asset, right? and that's the stance we took in the '80s after considerable debate, the reagan administration assured that we kept that line and that line has been maintained right through the present day including yesterday when the council of economic advisors released a report on inward direct investment that essentially said we're going to stay with that reagan-era line on this and not

start drawing new lines in the sand on investment just because their cost of inputs might be different than ours. >> let me see if anybody else has a question. pat, i'll come back to you. ye yes? >> thank you. this is harold. danny and derek are -- you, obviously, have two very different opinions about the chinese -- so my question is currently, which side is more -- has more influence to the white house and congress right now? [laughter] >> and how about 10 years later -- according to your predictions chinese fdi were increased to 1 or 2 billion 10 years later. so what is this thing going to

be? and same question from the chinese perspective angle. a lot of chinese enterprises tell me -- has huge concerns about the market access to the united states. the biggest risk is that they don't know what is the risk because right now they use a measure of security as a reason to ban the transactions. national security is a very abstract work. how is to united states have more transparent reviewing process? what's your comment about that? do you think u.s. should take a much more transparent process? thank you. >> i'm sure we both want to say something about this. >> geographically you could say the heritage is closer to congress.

[laughter] >> but there may be other factors. [laughter] >> that's sufficient, actually, to answer the question, i think. [laughter] >> however, i think we've got position 2 position 3 here, you know? and i don't know maybe there's somebody from the white house and a few people from the congress in the room here are upstairs. i'd say -- if derek's position is the more influential, then chinese entrepreneurial firms and others have grave reasons to be concerned. that after they invest millions of dollars of initial assessment of deals, opportunities of investment possibilities, they come over, they travel, they spend money on expensive washington lawyers, they do their homework and then they've got a good deal. there's no national security problem with it and it gets blocked because of some political games that need to be played to take care of carlisle's interest in china or coca-cola's or gm or boeing or whoever else.

there's no way to predict that. it's not about principal. it's about this golden thing and we're going to use it, this reciprocity, right, that's open-ended. i believe that he's correct. that the administration white house since reagan -- since ford, actually, have taken a position closer to number 2 that it's not in the u.s. interest to have that tactical ambiguity about what our attitude is about inward investment. that the u.s. is the world's biggest global investor and our interests are maximized if we get other people to play by those rules rather than opening up opportunity for k street lawyers to get more fees to make sure that you run the traps and don't get caught up in derek's dragnet. >> well, we're back to derek, of course, it's about principle and reciprocity is about principle. and a very good principle not exactly the one i'm outlining but the principle i'm outlining

is to push for open markets beyond just chinese investment in the u.s. but let me tie in the second part of your question, who has more influence now? i have no influence over this administration at all, none, zero, zip. i could play golf with president obama next sunday and i'd still have no influence. [laughter] >> influence over the congress is a different thing. and it changes. i mean, when you're talking about the long-term, you're talking about who's going to have influence 20 years later. it's not about, okay, i have more influence on dan now and dan is going to have more influence 20 years later. it's going to go like this and these positions are going to move and it's one of the reasons i want to solidify the u.s.-china relationship because there's going to be forces buffetting it and even negative forces and we haven't even talked about things that's outside of economics which is a whole new can of worms that could cause problem. but i'm not sure that dan is exactly right that the administration is at number 2 and i'll answer it by using the second part of your question.

the administration is charge of cfius and why is national security is so vague. i agree the national security is too vague. it's too big in a lot of countries. but the administration likes the vagueness. there's no move to clarify the cfius role. i would like one. there's an advantage to doing that. everybody involved in the policy-making process, even if they partlily agree with dan sees the advantage in having this tactical maneuvering because there's a lot of u.s. discussion with china on a lot of issues. and we don't like it that our leverage is mostly negative, all right? so that's a political reality. it's going to wax and wane over time. but the very fact that this administration and all previous administrations have left national security to be very vague indicates to you they may be different from the congress they are. they're closer to dan than the congress' but they see the advantages here as well. >> did the administration write that law or did congress? >> congress wrote the law. >> did president obama sign it or did president bush?

>> president bush. >> okay. okay. >> that's the only law we've ever had that governs this. prior to that it was just under executive order. >> has the administration done anything to clean up the cfius process, even tried to. >> let's talk about what's cleaned up. i want to know what's not working. i'm taking the position that the system we got works really pretty well and nobody can point me to a case that snuck through that's dilltorious to national security interest. >> that's interesting 'cause i flipped side. i'm over on this other side of you. >> oh, you're over there, okay. >> i said that there's a legitimate complaint and i heard it rather loudly from macau years ago that america defines national security on that point. as a narrow criticism of the united states, it's real. and the american response is, it's not -- we're not interested in that. we like the vague definition or

at least it has some advantages. and we're not going to just change it because you don't like it. because maybe we want something from you. >> let me let me -- actually, if we can take another 30 seconds on that, i have folks in government now to argue back to that. in fact, our definition of national security is not so vague. that it's pretty clearly defined and pretty classic and pretty narrow in terms of what we consider a threat to the national security in the united states. we haven't opened up a big loophole to sneak in the national economic interest in some vaguely defined manner. and the virtue of just looking at the direct investment flows rather than the portfolio also is that we can say back to our friends at ofcom and upstairs from ofcom right now, hey, how much more than 130% a year growth in chinese investment into the united states do you need to be happy?

how much more would it take for you to stop blaming our screening process for the fact that chinese firms aren't here in droves? and start recognizing the fact that they don't know how to operate their own borders because it's so -- it's so exceptional and idiosyncratic how to crate in china that a company that's bourne in that environment can't really take it abroad very easily. >> we've totally flipped sides on you and i'm sorry on that but there's one way where we suck to the terms of the original debate which is i think there's clear evidence right now -- even members of the administration with whom i have no influence, whatsoever, whose advantages in vagueness in some cases. and the main one that comes to mind is the equipment supply deal for sprint which is not technically under cfius mandate went a fair amount of ways and then the chinese companies were told to go home. if you were really concerned -- if the administration was really

at dan's position, that had have been handled differently. there would have been changes after that and there would have been some statement that we don't want to do that. there wasn't. because the administration sees some advantages in the way our current system is even though it has vague elements. >> yes. >> gentlemen, good morning. ben larson, army staff. my question is about the fear in the u.s. with china and how could it could affect our relationship could it negatively impact it to a serious degree and could derek scissors allay those fears and allow us to reach the hopeful future to what we're hopeful for. >> i like this guy. >> i will buy him a beer. because i think it will take a couple beers to get through that. this is round 1. it's going to be 20 rounds of chinese firms coming, you know, everybody is going to dredge up the stories of the japanese buying rockefeller center again

and yellow dawn and all this kind of stuff, red dawn, red dawn was the russians. yeah. and so then it will turn out that, well, you know, they're not so alien once we've had them operating, you know, in missouri for couple of years -- we kind of get our heads around what these things are and what they're not. and i think there'll be, you know, cycles. we'll go through a few cycles here of anxiety and then that settling down a little bit, which recapitulates the next several hundred years as well going from good earth where the chinese are just like us they're, you know, rustic, god-loving, good people they just have bad government around, you know, and just need to control for bad government to the craziness of the mao earning to dung shao ping in a cowboy

hat. i think we'll see the same thing playing through with regard to direct investment here. >> i completely agree with that. part of my concern as somebody who deals with members of congress who spent a lot of time being angry at china or acting like they're angry at china is the vulnerability to shock. the next year's election could be that shock. are you going to stake out a position and make a name for yourself by bashing the chinese. the donald trump tried that already, fortunately, he's so incompetent hopefully it discredited that way of thinking. but there's a lot of stuff in play, we're reliant for good relations with china to some extent on north korea of all people so there's a lot of risk here that -- it's not directly relevant to this discussion. i'm just saying in response to your particular question, i'm concerned dan is exactly right. there's going to be cycles. i'm worried about one of those dips being really, really bad. >> yeah, pat malloy from the

china commission. thank you, mr. ambassador. >> we are so welcomed. >> i'll quickly go through this. thank you and i appreciate you guys. we need this kind of debate about this issue. it's very important. and i do follow congress pretty closely because we're a creature of the congress for the commission. let me just put out the facts. the original cfius which i worked on was put into law in 1988 and it did not distinguish between regular and government-owned. it was amended in 1991 to make that distinction. the dubai ports deal got in trouble because the dubai government did not treat it as a purchase and they did not do the more extensive analysis. that became the political problem. now, i read a book by richard mcgregor called "the party" in which he contends that the party had enormous influence in appointing officials to state-owned enterprises. i don't know that's true or not but i read that book. i found it very interesting.

i did see recently that a lot of the heads of these state-owned oil companies got rotated. one of them was running a state oil company and then suddenly he's running a provincial government so there must be something that's different from an american corporation. now, if you have expansion of state-owned enterprise in the united states, whether they're subs or anything else, but they're controlled by a state-owned enterprise, does that present a problem that the communist party have greater access to the american political system because of the united decisions or on the other line? these are things that we need to thrash out because it does concern people on the hill. >> the party does not run state-owned enterprises. they're appointed and they do switch positions in the government and all that. so that's right. the state owned enterprises are party cadres they are appointed by the party, done. now, you know, talking about party political access to the

u.s., i again have this thing where you're talking about some future development that makes it impossible to say, well, that don't ever happen but we have no evidence of it. and so i don't want to make policy on the basis of something that a long way away and we don't have evidence for. if you want it to worry about chinese political access in the u.s. let's look at all of ourselves in this room. china has $3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves it doesn't know what to do with. all of us can be bribed. lots and lots of bribes and it's happening in washington and people are worried about it. there's nothing to do with direct investment. there's a lot of access. we're an open society. there's a lot of access to the united states political system. i don't think chinese foreign direct investment -- there may be a problem. we should prosecute it under u.s. law, but i don't think chinese foreign direct investment is going to be add to that. >> let's take two questions here. yea yeah. >> i'm from embassy of china.

i have a question to both of you. it's about industry structure, you know, china's advantage in the tertiary industry is about manufacturing, but for u.s., it's a tertiary industry so my question to derek is that you think china -- you know, china's advantage is satisfied by it, but about the fdi, we should -- the enterprise should come to the u.s. i think the opportunity to invest in tertiary industry, do

you think china could threat the u.s. with its disadvantage? and my question to dan is that you said that in the future the fdi will be increased greatly. what do you think about the opportunities will be located in which industry if -- that's all. thank you very much. >> and we have one question back in the rear. let's take it at the same time. >> thank you. i'm a senior associate. my research has been focusing on asserting the climates of environmental impacts in china's overseas investment. my question is because i assume very possibly it's climate

change -- [laughter] >> she is a former intern at the heritage foundation, i want you to know. [laughter] >> that was 10 years ago. i have a young heart. you know a significant portion of chinese investment goes to energy and resources sector and china has been building power plants in developing countries. how to channel china's overseas investment to low carbon development is a really important topic. so i understand that the driving force where i come from the chinese government and there has been the focus of our work, but i just want to know from the international perspective what kind of international mechanism we can leverage to channel china's overseas investment towards a low carbon development? that's my question. thanks. >> and i'm adding a final

question, has former ambassador john huntsman taken a stance or expressed view on the china fdi question during his time as ambassador? you have 2 minutes between you to answer these questions. [laughter] >> okay. i'll just -- let me just touch on three things here really quickly. you know, and two questions are -- what particular opportunities for the united states arising from these growing outflows of chinese investment. i see lots and there's lots of good stuff to talk about. wherever there's a comparative disadvantage for china, there's a corresponding advantage for an advanced economy such as the united states. and that entails almost anything to do with intellectual property creation. the truth is china has demonstrated precious little capacity to truly innovate. and that's occasioned quite a

bit of debate but it's my considered view that chinese firms are going to increasingly be looking to joint venturing and investing in places like united states in order to improve their ability to innovate, even think about innovation. the investment sectors which are just sort of like buying into an annuity, buying into u.s. power utilities, not because they're learning anything newbie operating coal-fired power in the united states but just because they understand that and how it works. so that will add to capital formation in traditional u.s. industries not just high tech so i see a pretty broad swath there. in terms of low carbon energy space in particular, i'm amazed to hear that w.r.i. takes interns from heritage. >> they're everywhere. >> that's amazing to me. that's great. [laughter] >> you know, i think probably -- >> just a couple minutes remaining in this event. we'll leave it at this point as the senate is about to gavel in for the day. on their agenda work on a bill designed to reduce the number of

executive branch positions requiring senate confirmation. a procedural vote to limit debate on the motion is possible today. and now 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. o god, our help in ages past, our hope for years to come.

help us to appreciate all that has gone on before us, all those who have given their lives for the sake of freedom and all the sacrifices that have been made to keep america strong. strengthen us to find ways to join this fraternity of patriots who more than self their country loved. today, empower our senators to experience a fresh, regenerating touch of your power. where there is sorrow, let there be joy.

where there is despair, hope. where there is weakness, strength. where there is anxiety, peace. where there is sin, forgiveness. teach us how to be stewards of power and yet custodians of peace. we pray in your merciful 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 22, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following any leader remarks, the senate will be in morning business until 11:00 this morning. the majority will control the first half. the republicans the final half. following morning business, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 679, the presidential appointment efficiency and streamlining act. we're working on an agreement to begin consideration of this bill. we'll notify senators when those votes are scheduled. i would ask that the -- the time

not end at 11:00 on the majority and minority, that they each have a full half-hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, yesterday, my friends, the chairman of the foreign relations committee and the ranking member of the armed services committee, introduced a resolution supporting the united states involvement in the nato action in libya. i commend my friends who have introduced a strong bipartisan resolution with an impressive list of cosponsors, including senators mccain, levin, durbin, kyl, feinstein, graham, lieberman, blunt, cardin and others. this bill should have overwhelming support as i'm confident it will. some republicans in the house of representatives and on the campaign trail have expressed concern over our involvement in this conflict. they have clearly decided to use the war powers resolution as a political bludgeon to pursue a partisan agenda. i also believe there is a larger question we must ask ourselves as senators as we consider this

military action. as our participation in the national effort to stop mass murder and chaos in libya a just decision? i'm confident it was. moammar qadhafi's repressive dictatorship is a threat to the region and to the united states national security. our support of this mission is crucial for our nato alliance that is leading this mission for the people of libya who have lived far too long under qadhafi's brutal regime. i thank the senator from massachusetts and the senior senator from arizona for beginning to deliberate. these two senior seniors -- senior senators have begun a deliberate and bipartisan discussion of this important matter here in the senate. working together, this bipartisan group of senators has made a clear statement to our allies, to the world, to the libyan people and to qadhafi that we support the administration's actions on libya. the senate is truly at its best when bipartisan lawmakers work together. that's why it's so unfortunate, mr. president, yesterday

republicans were unwilling to join us in our efforts to create jobs for americans who need them so very, very badly. for the fourth time this year, my republican colleagues stalled a jobs bill that could have put hundreds of thousands of americans to work now. this was the second jobs bill republicans have killed by piling on unrelated amendments. the e.d.a. bill that i just referred to, almost 100 amendments, none of which related to the legislation at hand. two more bills passed the senate but are wasting away in the house. all four of these bills are commonsense efforts to spur innovation, investment and hiring by private companies. all four had a proven track record of creating jobs. the message republicans have sent is clear. they care more about partisan politics than they do about putting americans back to work. later today, democrats will talk about our plan to reduce the jobs deficit, a problem just as critical to americans as our budget deficit. we hope our republican colleagues will join us to

tackle the problem. so far, they have put politics first. madam president, i don't know what it will take for republicans to get the message that people in nevada and across the country care more about jobs than any other issue. it's the most important thing congress should focus on. instead, republicans are focused on the one thing americans don't want to change -- ending medicare as we know it. it's wrong that republicans are trying to end medicare as we know it. the american public does not support this. the vast majority of americans say they oppose the republican plan to balance the budget on the backs of seniors by killing comoir. -- killing medicare. the number among seniors is sky high in opposition to the republican plan to change medicare as we know it. there is no mystery as to why they oppose it. the republican plan to end medicare would cut insurance company -- would put -- i'm sorry, madam president, would put insurance company bureaucrats between seniors and their doctors. it would raise drug prices from

day one. and it would increase the cost of cancer screenings and treatments for seven million seniors and do a lot more damage to our medicare recipients. seniors can't afford this dangerous plan nor can america. the senate can't afford to waste any more time. it's our job to create jobs. it's time for republicans to leave medicare alone and let us get back to work creating jobs. madam president, will you announce morning business? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is preserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m., with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the second half. under a subsequent order, each side will have the full 45 minutes.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i did not hear that last ruling from the chair. how much time does the senator from iowa have? the presiding officer: each side has 45 minutes. mr. harkin: i thing the presiding officer. i ask unanimous consent that eric dodd, emily messerly and courtney greenley of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceeding. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: madam president, i want to pick up a little bit again in my remarks on what the majority leader was just talking about, and that is the -- the lack of focus on jobs in this country. i'm disturbed by the growing disconnect between washington's obsession, obsession with austerity and retrenchment and cutting and slashing, that obsession with that, and the disconnect from that with the dramatically different needs and priorities and anxieties of ordinary working americans.

the so-called chattering class here in washington has persuaded itself that the biggest issue is the budget deficit, but americans outside the beltway are most concerned with the far more urgent deficit, the jobs deficit, and their concerns are well-founded. our nation remains deeply mired in the most protracted period of joblessness since the great depression. real unemployment, real unemployment is close to 16%, and tens of millions of people who are employed are increasingly anxious about being able to hold onto their jobs and to make ends meet. madam president, the american people get it. they want to get this economy moving again, and they know the best way to reduce the budget deficit is to help 25 million unemployed americans get good, middle-class jobs and become taxpayers once again. with the private sector engine

sputtering, there is an absolutely critical role for the federal government in creating demand and prevent ago double-dip recession. but we have to wonder, is washington listening to working middle-class americans? is washington listening to the legions of unemployed and the underemployed who are desperate for solutions to their plight? sadly, i think the answer is no, washington is not listening. many of our political leaders are creating the jobs crisis as yesterday's news. they're putting deficit reduction above all else. they are demanding extraordinary, in fact, unprecedented cuts to government funding and government investment. it's like a bidding war driven by the hysteria of the auction rather than by the value of the lot. let's cut a trillion. no, a trillion and a half here. no, i got two trillion to cut

over here. no, two and a half. how about four trillion cuts? it's like an auction, it's like a bidding war to see how much we can cut government funding and investment. i have to ask -- has washington lost its mind? don't we realize that these draconian cuts are the economic equivalent of applying leeches and drank blood from a sick patient? don't we realize that this will make both the jobs deficit and the budget deficit far worse? of course, we must act aggressively to bring deficits under control, but we have to do this in ways that continue to create more jobs while also improving the long-term competitiveness of the american economy. we have reached the point of maximum danger, madam president, in the fragile economic recovery. we are at the point of maximum

danger. employment growth is weak, threatens to stall out altogether. businesses remain reluctant to invest and hire for the simple reason that there is not sufficient demand for goods and services. all those unemployed and underemployed people are only spending enough to make ends meet. if they are getting unemployment compensation, they are barely making ends meet. there is no excess money. the middle class is tapped out. stagnant incomes, insecure jobs, high levels of mortgage, high levels of consumer debt. the threat of a double-dip recession is far too real. and the fear of more unemployment also hangs right over tomorrow's horizon. in this context, to insist that we slash federal funding by trillions of dollars is beyond

foolish. it is government malpractice. it flies in the face of everything that we know and have learned about how economies work. two weeks ago, the federal reserve chairman bernanke stated the obvious. he warned us, and here's his quote -- "a sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term could be self-defeating if it were to undercut the still fragile economy." end quote. again, i ask, anyone listening? madam president, the alarm bells are ringing all over america. recently, the federal reserve bank of new york published an online article about what it called -- quote -- "the mistake of 1937." now, what's that all about? well, the new york fed was referring to the premature fiscal and monetary pullback in 1937 just as the economy was

beginning to get its legs to get out of the depression. that premature retrenchment was an historic mistake. it killed the recovery then in progress, sent us back into the great depression for another almost four years, until it was finally ended with the stimulative spending of world war ii. paul krugman, the nobel price winning economist, says we have already repeated the miss stake of 1937. we have taken our eyes off of what should be our number-one priority, number-one priority: creating jobs. we have pivoted to an obsession -- again, i repeat, an obsession with short-term budget cuts, which by their very nature will destroy jobs and weaken the economy. madam president, let me cite another learned example of the disconnect between washington and the rest of the country.

here in washington republicans assert that the recovery act was a failure, and why do they claim that? because they claim that president obama promised that the recovery act would reduce unemployment to 8%, and because that hasn't happened, it was a failure. we have researched this. the republican talkingpoint on this president obama promise has no basis in fact. independent fact checkers in the media have tried to find such a promise or a statement by president obama, and they've come up empty. so i say gone my republican friends, if you have some proof of president obama saying that the recovery act would reduce unemployment to 8%, please bring it forward. all that we have found in

checking this was an illustrative table from a report that was published -- ready for this? -- before president obama took office. speculating that some future stimulus program might reduce unemployment to 8%. depending on how big the stimulus was. those same fact checkers found that president obama did promise one thing in the recovery act: he said it would prevent a new great depression and would prevent unemployment rates of 12% on the one hand 13%. -- of 12% and 13%. that did happen. fortunately, ordinary americans have a better understanding of the recovery act. they know that hundreds of billions of dollars in middle-class tax cuts in the recovery act gave them a modest but a significant boost in income. they know that because of the recovery act's assistance to the

states, many tens of thousands of teachers, police officers, other essential employees were able to keep their jobs. they have seen countless highway and other infrastructure projects funded by the recovery act. all of these have either preserved jobs or created more and new jobs. and they provided significant benefits for our people, including better roads, better bridges, better schools, other critical infrastructure for the future of our country. thanks in large part to the recovery act, we've gone from losing 6 700,000 jobs a month in late-2008 when president obama took office, building the infrastructure of america. now, madam president, i know a little bit about this.

if you were to go over to my office, you would see hangin han my wall in my office my fearnlings deputy p.a. card. young people don't know what w.p.a. stands for, it stands for the works projects administration. it started under franklin roosevelt and the great depression to hire people who were unemployed to work on infrastructure projects. i know that my father worked on three of those projects. one was lake ocuabe near indian lake, ohio, which is still enjoyed by people all year long, especially in the summertime. the other was the high school in indianola, iowa, still being used, built by w.p.a. the other was the moffitt reservoir built by w.p.a.

all three built by the w. pe th. we have schools in iowa that have been upgraded and modified by still built under w.p.a. and that's true all thoafer country. so what happened is they built an infrastructure that helped the private sector be more efficient and more productive and made lives better for our people. well, we need to do that again, and we need to invest all over america. well, the recovery act started that. the recovery act started that. but now we know that it wasn't enough, and it wasn't long enough, just like in 1937 we're a about to repeat that same mistake. if we had kept the stimulus going through 1937 and 1938, we wouldn't have fallen back, as we did at that time. the nonpartisan congressional

budget office estimates that through the end of 2010, the recovery act had raised the gross domestic product by as much as 3.5%. and increased the number of employed americans by as many as 3.3 million people -- employed both in the public sector but also in the private sector. i would also add this: business columnists and pundits have no doubt that the recovery act has boosted the economy. you can go to cnbc, bloomberg or cable tv. here's what they say. sure the economy is growing again, they say, but this is largely because of the recovery act, and the easing by the federal reserve, as those things wind down, the economy will be in danger once again. are you kidding? seems to me then we don't want to wind them down. why wind them down and throw use in a tailspin again? so these business pundits are

correct. the shot in the arm provided by the recovery act is now winding down. it threatens our fragile recovery and the absence of further federal assistance, many states are making deep budget cuts or laying off their employees. in texas governor perry has proposed to cut education funding by a staggering $10 billion. in new york city, the mayor has proposed laying off 6,000 teachers. total state and local government layoffs just in the last six months have been nearly 350,000 -- 3 5,000 people who were working, no -- 350,000 people who were working, no longer working. so where's going to be the demand for the goods and services? now if the federal government follows suit after what's happening in our states with these massive short-term spending cuts, the prospect of a more severe recession will be

very real and we'll go off that cliff. so i reject the false choice between addressing the budget deficit and addressing the jobs deficit. we can and must do both. as i said earlier, the budget deficit is in large part caused because of the high jobs deficit. high unemployment easer the last three years -- over the last three years has ballooned the deficit because tax revenues has fallen. federal spend has increased for things like food stamps, nutrition assistance, unemployment benefits, medicaid. how often do we hear that medicaid spending is skyrocketing? you know, before you can get comairksd you have to fall under certain poverty guidelines. the reason medicaid is going up is because people aren't working. people aren't working because there aren't jobs. and there aren't jobs because the federal government will not prime the pump, because the

federal government -- now we're being told we must cut back, huge cuts, tremendous cuts that will further make more people get laid off and will further make the problem even worse than it is now. the smartest approach is to take measures to sharply reduce the deficits in the medium- and long-term but to invest in job creation in the short-term. we got it backwards. washington now has it backwards. my republican friend friends hat bacbackwards. we're going to slash and cut and that's going to push us into another recession. better we invest in the infrastructure and keeping new jobs and more jobs out there that will create the pent-up deand in we need for goods and services. then that will help us reduce the deficit in the long -- in the medium and the long term.

so we've got to do it right. a balanced way, some spending cuts and revenue increases -- revenue increases. people say, well, how can we invest, senator harkin -- how can we invest in all these roads and new schools, new infrastructure, new energy systems, how can we do that when we're broke? we just v. going to borrow more money from china, is that the answer, go further in debt, put more debt on our kids and grandkids? madam president, i thoroughly reject the premise on which the ryan budget and the republican budget is based. it's based on the premise that we're broke. that we're poor. that we can't afford to have teachers and we can't afford to have better medical -- more

medical personnel out there taking care of our elderly, that we can't afford new roads and bridges and sewer and water systems and better school facilities and better technology, new energy systems, we can't afford to do that because we're broke. i reject that. we are not broke. we're not poor. the united states of america is the richest nation in the history of mankind. we are the richest nation on the face of the earth. we have the highest per capita income of any major nation in the world. so one has to ask the question: if we're so rich, why are we so broke, why are we so poor? the reason is because the system is broke. the system is broken. and this really started with the massive tax cuts enacted under the george w. bush administration of 2001. need i remind anyone that we had

three straight years of budget deficits. c.b.o. said if we kept on the path we were on, we'd pay off the national debt by 2010. but, since president bush got in office, the republicans took control of both the house and the senate, huge, massive tax cuts mostly to the wealthy in our country. mostly to the wealthy. that, plus two unpaid-for wars, an unpaid-for medicare benefit put us into the hole. put use in the greatest deficits angt biggest debt we've ever had as a nation. well, if 50% of the problem we have with the deficit was made because of the tax cuts that mostly went to the wealthy, then we have to think seriously. now, i will rephrase that.

we don't have to think seriously. we must act decisively to raise revenues, so we don't have to borrow more money. and there are revenues there. there are revenues there to be held -- to be had. a lot of -- a few people made a lot of money in the last ten years. i don't think that's untoad to ask them to -- i don't think it's untoward to ask them to help rebuild america. the private companies are investing on $2 trillion in cash and they won't invest it. so there's money there. our tax system, our system is screwed up. so we need both, yes, to make targets cuts in certain programs. we can do that. but we also need to raise the revenues necessary to invest in putting people to work and rebuilding the infrastructure of this country.

now, the republicans are saying that we need more tax breaks for the wealthy. if the working people and the middle class are going to take a hit in tough times, it shouldn't be to pay for more tax breaks for the wealthy. and, again, like our leader just said, after weeks of debate, republicans blocked passage of a bipartisan small business bill and just this week they killed the economic development administration bill with a proven record of job creation. madam president, the key to renewing america and restoring our economy is to revitalize the middle class. that means investing in education, innovation, the infrastructure, boosting american competitiveness in a highly competitive global marketplace. and how do we do both? we do it by making certain targeted cuts but raising

revenues. by raising revenues. and i would have to add, that one of those ways we have to think about cutting is why we're continuing to spend billions of dollars and lose american lives in afghanistan. and what are we still doing in iraq? i saw a recent report that said that we have spent over $87 billion in iraq and really what do we have to show for it? higher gasoline prices than ever before and a country that is still, is still torn apart by internal strife. what it means if we want to really move ahead and create these jobs, it means a level playing field, fair taxation, an empowered work force, a strong ladder of opportunity to give every american a shot at the middle class. so with the fragile economic recovery, we should not reduce fiscal support for job creation

at this time. deficit reduction efforts can start but sequenced in. when the economy is recovering, that's when they start taking place. now is the time to invest in job creation. keep our priorities straight. the greatest challenge right now is not the budget deficit. the greatest challenge is the jobs deficit. the greatest challenge is the erosion of the middle class which is under siege in america. the middle class is being dismantled every day. people losing their savings, their health care, their pensions. in many cases, even their homes. now these proposed drastic budget cuts will destroy jobs and further damage the economy. the people, the middle class of america have every reason to believe that they're losing the american dream, not just for

themselves but for their children. so, madam president, instead of the republican budget, which is being sold through fear and fatalism, fear and fatalism, we need a budget that reflects the hopes, the aspirations of the american people. we need a budget that will invest to create jobs, that will bring future deficits under control as more people come to work, as fewer people need medicaid, as fewer and fewer people need food stamps, as fewer and fewer people need unemployment compensation when they begin working and becoming taxpayers again. it is up to the federal government to take this step, and we should not be afraid to do so, and it must be bold. it can't be tinkering around the

edges. it must be something that is big and that is bold and that will jump-start our economy. that is our number-one priority, our number-one priority. i hope that we can do this so that it will not happen, that we go into another great depression or like what happened in the late 1930's that we had to depend upon another war to stimulate government spending and put people back to work. god help us. if that is the only thing we can look forward to to get our economy going again. we should have learned from the past, taken those lessons from the past and take the steps necessary right now to invest in jobs to rebuild the middle class of america and to have a fair taxation system so those people at the top who made so much --

and i don't begrudge people making money but i do begrudge if they are not paying their fair share in revenues to this country. that's our challenge. that's our challenge. i hope the congress is up to meeting that challenge. the middle class is the backbone of america, and it's time this congress showed the backbone to stick up for it. madam president, with that, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. madam president, how much time is remaining on our side? the presiding officer: 19 minutes. mr. harkin: 19 minutes. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: 18 minutes. mr. harkin: madam president, i also wanted to speak about the new national labor relation board rulings that -- rules that came out just yesterday. and it also has a lot to do with the middle class in america and what happens to the middle class. in 1912, women went on strike at a textile plant in laurence, massachusetts. they inspired the nation when they walked the picket lines, they had signs that said this -- "we want bread but we want roses, too." well, what did they mean by that? they mean they wanted jobs, but they didn't just want bare subsistence jobs. as you know, many women died in that terrible fire in that textile plant.

they wanted jobs but they wanted jobs that paid a living wage. they wanted jobs that didn't work people 12, 18 hours a day, six, seven days a week. those words helped shape the character of the country that we created, a shared prosperity for the american people. now almost 100 years later, we face the same fundamental question about what kind of country that we want to be. when we imagine the america of our dreams for our children and our grandchildren, is bread just good enough for the middle class or should we have some roses, too? republicans portray our country as i said as poor and broke. they have used this as an excuse to rationalize an unprecedented attack on the middle class, but as i said the reality is we're the wealthiest nation in history. there are just more and more of us being concentrated at the top. now what we need to do is make sure that working people can have a fair shot at the middle class. too much has been rigged in favor of c.e.o.'s and the

corporate structure, and nowhere is this more apparent than the process by which workers form a union, or i should say by which process workers are blocked from forming a union. right now, it's a never-ending bitter struggle marred by corporate intimidation and frivolous lawsuits. so the rules promulgated by the nlrb yesterday tries to right this and make it a fair and equitable process so that people can form a union. very modest. what it does is it cuts down on the number of frivolous lawsuits. it shortens the period of time for elections. sometimes it takes months, in some cases years, years before a union is able to be formed, in which time people are harassed, intimidated. that's not the american way. workers deserve a fair shake. if people want to form a union, they deserve that right to do

so. so the steps that they took are common sense, it removes unnecessary delays, cuts down on frivolous legal challenges, gives workers the right to a fair up-or-down vote in a reasonable period of time. these new rules don't encourage unionization and they don't discourage it. they just give workers the ability to say yes or no. and again, with a secret ballot. the current system is broken. i've said it takes sometimes -- we have in some cases 13 years before people were allowed to vote in a union election. so a study by the center for economic policy research found that -- that among workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign, one in five is fired. nine out of ten employers require their employees to attend meetings on work time to hear antiunion presentations. workers are required to attend an average of ten antiunion

meetings. well, it's time to right this balance. that's what the nlrb did. to give workers the right to have a fair election, to have a secret ballot, not to have it drug out for years and years with frivolous lawsuits and to make sure that union workers also -- that the union people have access to the workers, can meet with them as well as having the employer also meet with them. that's all it is. it's nothing more, nothing less than that. this is a fair set of rules. i'm sure we're going to hear from the business community about this and say oh, this is meddling and this is going to tilt towards the unions. well, no, it doesn't. for far too long, it's been tilted on the side of the employer and against unions. now we bring it back to the middle where we say we're neither pro, we're not against, but we're going to let workers

have the right to say whether or not they want to form a union. so i compliment the nlrb and i know i have heard that there is going to be some challenges to it here on the floor of the senate. again, i hope that reason will prevail and that the united states senate will once again stand up for the right, the inherent right of people to be able to organize and bargain collectively for their wages, hours and conditions of employment. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i have five unanimous consents for committees to meet during today's session of the senate, with the approval of the majority and minority leaders, and i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you, madam president. madam president, there was a vote yesterday on the senate floor about a bill that was pending that goes directly to the topic just raised by the senator from iowa. it was the economic development administration. it's an agency created almost a half a century ago to create incentives for businesses to build, expand and locate in

places across america where there is high unemployment. it's been a success in illinois and almost every other state. for every dollar the federal government puts on the table, it generates $7 in economic activity. there isn't a lot to go around, so they pick those projects that are the most promising, and it's a good agency. it's an agency that has enjoyed wide bipartisan support, and yet when it came time yesterday to vote on whether or not to go ahead and pass the bill to reauthorize the agency, unfortunately we couldn't find 60 senators on the floor to vote yes. and so the bill languished and basically was pulled from the calendar. it's the second time this year when we face this recession and high notre dame that the senate has refused, refused to take up a bill that literally will help business create jobs across america. it doesn't make sense, does it? when we have so many people out of work that we can't even agree on a bill to help create jobs

and help business. it doesn't make sense unless the premise of this debate is understood. the republican minority leader, senator mcconnell, said that his highest legislative priority this session was to make sure that president obama is a one-term president. well, it's that guiding force that led to the vote yesterday. it's that guiding force that has stopped us from passing meaningful legislation when it comes to unemployment in america time and again. you see, if we're destined and determined to stop this president and frustrate any efforts to build jobs, then the senate will just continue to languish. now, how does this work? well, it works because when bills come to the floor, brought here by the majority leader harry reid, senators from the other side of the aisle start a steady stream procession up to this desk here to file amendment after amendment after amendment until we had literally 100

amendments filed to the economic development administration bill. and you say well, maybe this bill needed some work. the amendments had little or nothing to do with the bill. they are about everything under the sun. every issue that a senator can dream of or that a staff thinks might be interesting -- and believe me, 100 is a modest number. we can certainly, our staff people and others, come up with hundreds more. but at the end of the day, we still won't pass the economic development administration. we won't help businesses locate, expand and create jobs, and we'll still continue to languish with millions of americans unemployed. i think it's time for us to face reality, and the reality we face is that america has two deficits. the one we talk a lot about is the budget deficit, and it's serious. i was on the deficit commission, the bowles-simpson commission. we looked at it long and hard and realized that it is unsustainable for america to borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends this work -- in

washington. we can't continue to do this. the debt of our nation is growing dramatically, and we have to bring it to a stop. that means cutting spending and raising revenue. those are the only two ways to reduce the deficit, and we have to do both. that's what the bowles-simpson commission said and i voted for it. a bipartisan vote for a commission to move forward on the deficit. but they said something else. don't do it too precipitously. be careful to not kill off the recovery we're engaged n the bowls-simpson commission said wait a year, make your plan, make your commitment but say for this year we're going to get america back to work. the commission knew and we all know, you can't balance america's budget with 14 million people out of work. these are folks who should be earning a paycheck and paying taxes who instead are home looking for work, searching the internet, searching the classifieds and drawing benefits from the government instead of

paying taxes. so as long as 14 million americans are in that position and sadly we're going to have a deficit that is aggravated rather than one that is cured. so the bowles-simpson commission said don't move too quickly to kill programs that make a difference, and they're right. i happen to think they were right in many other respects. when we deal with our budget deficit, let's be honest about it. it's going to take sacrifice from everybody. maybe some of the poo poorest among us cannot sacrifice anymore. i i understand that. but for most of us, a little change in our lifestyle, a little change in the government benefits we might be receiving or the taxes we might be paying -- not too high a price to ask to put this economy on the right track. madam president i think a lot about sacrifices being made by americans. the first people who come to mind are the men and women who are serving around the world.

think about the sacrifice they have volunteered to make every single day. they are willing to risk and in many cases give their liberias for this nation. if they're willing to make that kind of sacrifice, can we honestly say with a straight face we can make in a sacrifice to make america stronger? i think we can. i think we should. i think we ought to come together in a bipartisan fashion. madam president, i am frustrated by the fact that for the last five months i have been meeting with a bipartisan group of senators and we've come up with the basic outline of an approach which would dramatically reduce america's deficit in a balanced and fair way. it would put everything on the table. and let me undermine the word "everything." many of my colleagues don't want everything on the table. on this side of the aisle they don't want to talk about our entitlement programs. on the other side of the aisle, they don't want to talk about revenue. i understand that. but we both have to give a little for the good of this

country. but after five months of long, tortured negotiation, after what i consider to be a successful effort -- 95% successful in process ago plan for deficit reduction, i'm sorry to report that we're just not ready to let the world end on what we've been doing. i wish we would. i'm prepared, and i hope other colleagues will be, too, to come to the throor and to lay this out and say, if this helps, if this helps our country, if this helps congress, if it helps the president, if it helps those who are working with vice president biden, then here's our offer. here sour best effort -- here is our best effort. now, t. it's not perfect. and it won't be the end product. but for goodness sakes, the time is over for talking behind closed doors. i appeal to all my colleagues to

come forward, with this gang of circumstancsix, now the gang of. let us break this logjacques jam which has stopped us from bringing these ideas forward. i want to keep my good faith with those who are engaged in this effort. i'm not going to describe in any detail what we have been doing. but i have reached a level of frustration that after all of this work and all of this time, all of this effort and all of the political courage which i have seen behind closed doors, we need to step forward and say something publicly. do it in a fashion that gives some guidance to those who are making critical decisions. let's not reach the point where we literally test the creditworthiness of the united states of america by refusing to extend the debt ceiling. that's a bill which goes largely unnoticed each year. it's when america renews its

mortgage, and it comes due august 2 this year, and if we don't do it, i can tell you what's going to happen. and my projection projections ad on any great expertise that i have but on what has been told to me by the chairman of the federal reserve, by the secretary of treasury, by the president. here's what'll happen. if the united states does not show that we are read to pay our debts in a timely fashion, what's going to happen automatically is that interest rates will rise. the federal reserve is supposed to report this week that they're going to keep interest rates low because they want america's economy to recover. now, we can spoil this party in a hurry, if we get engaged in a political catfight here between the house and senate and both political parties a understand do not extend the debt -- and do not extend the debt ceiling. failure to extend that or creating uncertainty about its extension, will raise interest rates and you know who will pay the price? americans across the board. when you want to buy a car, you

want to buy a home, if you own a business that wants to expand and hire more people, if you can borrow money, it'll be at a higher interest rates. this will slow down our recovery. let me suggest that those who believe -- as i do -- and i think i have put my beliefs up for display when if comes to the deficit -- for goodness sake, let us not bargain with the debt ceiling. let us stand up together and accept the responsibility of governing, the responsibility of reaching a decision and moving forward. to see a bill like the economic development administration bill die on the floor last night is a reminder of how partisanship run amok can hurt us when america needs leadership the most. to put 100 amendments on the floor to a bill as simple as this that used to pass with a

voice vote, it shows that some want to accomplish absolutely nothing but partisan debate. that's not good for the country. if the best thing that we can do at the end of the day here after all 100 senators can filing in through the door is to pass some resolution extolling the virtue of someone across america, if that's the best we can do, maybe we don't deserve these paychecks we're being sent. maybe it is time for the american people to demand an accounting of those elected to office. we've got to be ready to not only make the speeches and make the political points but stand up and make a dins. and that means standing together. it means taking a risk, putting everything on the table and getting america moving. if we get this deficit resolved, if we convince the people around the world that we're serious about it, we'll launch an economic recovery that will create jobs, help businesses and create a stronger nation and give ow kids a chance. the alternative is unacceptable. i hope my colleagues, if they

believe we should move forward on a bipartisan basis and deal with this deficit, to put everything on the table now and get down to business, i hope they'll come to the floor and say as much. i yield the floor. mr. corker: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: madam president, you i understand i have ten minutes to speak. is that correct? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. corker: if you would show me the courtesy, if i happen to get within two minutes of that, to let me know. the presiding officer: i will. mr. corker: i rise to speak on the same topic the senator from i recall i will is here to talk b that is, the discussions that are taking place around the debt ceiling vote and what kind of agreement can take place. these are called the blair house negotiations that are happening between the vice president of the united states, the actual president of the senate when he's here, and the leaders both on the republican and depth side of the house -- and democratic side of the house and senate.

madam president, what i want to speak about today is that in reading some of the public comments i'm concerned that the type of deal that they may be trying to seek is not something that many of us in this body would even agree to, if they reached it, meaning that it's far more modest than i think most of us have been looking at. so, madam president, it's my understanding that they're going ito be meeting all week. it is my understanding that they had hoped to reach an agreement by next week. my reason for coming to the floor is to ask the vice president and those others involved in this to publicly tell us by the understand of next week what deal it is they're trying to accomplish and what time frame. madam president, i think all of us are frustrated. as the senator from illinois just mentioned, we have done

absolutely nothing in this body this year. nothing. we have voted on a few uncontroversial judges. maybe we've done slightly more than that, but almost nothing while our country languishes worrying what we're going to do with these budget debates. we haven't passed a budget here in something like 770 days. here we are shelling out taxpayer money every day and we don't have a budget, which is as irresponsible as one can be. so, madam president, what i'm saying is, there are groups actually that are working on other solutions, and i think it would be good for this body to know what kind of arrangement is being looked at, what kind of goals are trying to be achieved, and what time frame they're going to be achieved so that people will know with some degree of certainty as to whether there's going to be something achieved that even we

would agree to. let me give you an example. one of the things i've heard is that we're going to have the same amount of debt limit extension as we do in reductions. that we'll have $2.4 trillion in debt ceiling additions and $2.4 trillion in cuts. the problem is, the debt extension is over an 18-month period, and the cuts are over a 10-year period. and so you can see that there's a vast discrepancy in what is taking place. now, the semantics may sound good, but the result candidly is not near what i believe the american people would like to see, nor what i believe financial markets would like to see. so, if our goal is something that we know on the front end is not even acceptable to this body, it seems to me that it's not rational for us to be sitting here waiting on this group at the blair thousands make a deal that we all know is not good enough.

so, madam president, i hope that by the end of next week this group that is negotiating will come forth and tell us what it is they're trying to achieve, the likellihood of achieving it and then what time frame. i ai'm also hearing that there e discussions that we do not believe will reach a deal by the august recess. there's been some public comments about short-term extensions. madam president, i cannot imagine going home to recess on august the 6th to the people of tennessee and telling them that we're on august recess, and you'll here toil that we haven't done -- and i'm here to tell you that we haven't done a thing, not one thing, as it relates to reesmg reaching a deal on how many cults are going to take place -- cuts are going to take place in relation to our debt

ceiling. i cannot imagine us doing that as a body. the other thing i'm hearing, madam president, is that we may be looking at a short-term extension to move beyond the august recess, to get us back into this fall. maybe that's a way of dealing with this issue. but, madam president, again, if we're having a short-term extension to try to give time to reach a deal that we all know is unacceptable on the front end, why would we give a short-term extension? so, madam president, it just seems to me that the most responsible thing that could happen would be for negotiators on both sides to tell this body -- this body which has done nothing of importance really this year, maybe a few minor things, not much; we spent no time dealin dealing with serious issues, no time dealing with the budget mpgh, no time dealing wie

issue of deficit reduction -- to let us know where they are. madam president, it seems to me that members of this body are getting very restless. they say what is happening. we sort of se have seen this moe before where you bump up against a deadline and you have to make a decision up or down because -- quote -- "it is going to create havoc in the marketplace. " and, madam president, it seems to me that again the responsible smalthank for the blair house gp to do to let us know where they are at the end of this next weefnlg so if members of this body wanted to figure out a different route to go because they thought the route that was being taken was not acceptable, not good enough, as a matter of fact i noticed yesterday where the chairman of the budget committee on the other side of the aisle has said the things that he's heard are not good enough for him, i can tell you for me they're not good enough

for me. so the goal that we are trying to achieve is not something that i would even agree to. and so maybe if we cannot get some degree of clarity as to what is happening at the blair house and some degree of update, maybe there is some other route we should take, or maybe the market should know well in advance that this body doesn't have the discipline, doesn't have the ability, doesn't have the courage to deal with what we know is an upcoming calamity, a calamity that's either going to occur because we cannot reach agreement and we do not raise the debt ceiling or a calamity that occurs a little bit down the road because we haven't shown the fiscal discipline in this body to put our house in order, knowing that at some point in time the markets will run from us, interest rates will rise, people will no longer be willing to loan us money because

we've shown how irresponsible we are, and we have a clam on that end. so let me restate, madam presid. i'm 58 years old. i came here to this body to solve problems. and if there is going to be a calamity, i want the calamity to occur while i'm here so i can deal with it and take responsibility for it versus kicking the can down the road for somebody else down the road to have to deal with the fact that we as a body are irresponsible. so in closing, madam president, i thank you for the time. i implore the folks that are meeting behind closed doors, i implore them to come forward and to outline the goals that they're trying to achieve and when they think they're going to achieve it, so that all of us who are sitting around here

cooling our heels doing nothing, doing almost nothing of importance for this country -- i mean, the senator from illinois talked about the e.d.a. bill. we all knew it wasn't going to pass. everybody knew that. everybody knew that that bill was offered on the floor to kill time, to make it look like the united states senate was doing something. that's all it was for. everybody knew that. everybody working up front knew that. the pages knew that. everybody knew that. so for people to come down here and act like it's a shock that cloture wasn't achieved on e.d.a. when we knew it was just here for filling is kind of surprising. we knew what it was about. so, madam president, i'd like for to us get on with dealing with the most important issue our country has to deal with, and that is the huge amount of deficit spending where every day we're spending $4.1 billion we don't have.

every day we're borrowing 40 cents of that from other folks. every day we're causing this country, because of that, to be in decline -- hopefully we'll rectify that -- but to be in decline, lowering the standard of living of all americans because we in this body do not know, do not show the capability, the will, the desire to solve that problem. i'm hoping -- i'm hoping -- that the blair house negotiations yield a result. i really do. and that's why i think all of us are being patient as they meet in private sharing no details about what they're doing. but at the end of this week, the end of this work period, madam president, i think it's time that they come forth to give us a status as to where they are so that if there's other routes that ought to be taken, people have the ability to do that. with that, madam president, i yield the floor and notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mrs. hutchison: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i rise today to discuss social security and its future. this is certainly an issue that affects all americans, and, madam president, now is the time that we can address it in a way that will not be horribly obtrusive to the people who will be on social security in 25 years when it just hits the bottom and we have stark realities that are going to hurt people. we can avoid that. last thursday i introduced with

senator jon kyl as an original cosponsor, senate bill 1213, the defend and save social security act, a bill that will secure social security for the next 75 years without raising taxes and without cutting core benefits to anyone. 28 years ago this passed april, congress and president reagan came together in a bipartisan manner and acted decisively to address social security's finances to save the program for retirees. the men and women of that congress, working with president reagan, did it because at that time the program's expenditures had begun exceeding revenues in 1975. by mid-1982, the social security trustees warned -- this is a quote -- "social security will be unable to make benefit

payments on time beginning in the latter half of 1982." so the president and the congress, in a bipartisan effort, started on a glide path of raising the retirement age to meet the current actuarial tables. today we are in roughly the same place. this spring the trustees estimated that the social security trust fund reserves will be depleted in 2036, which is 25 years away. we have a little more time than president reagan and congress had back in 1975. at that point in time, the trustees today say, they estimate that payroll tax revenue to the social security trust fund will only be able to pay out 77% of benefits to

beneficiaries. in today's dollars, that would mean a cut in benefits of 23%, or $271 a month average in core benefit cuts if we don't do anything. last year, just to give you the numbers, 157 million american workers paid social security payroll taxes, totaling about $637 billion in revenues. however, a total of $702 billion in benefits were paid out to the approximately 54 million beneficiaries. these numbers are clear, madam president. the amount of social security benefits being paid out now exceeds the revenue that social security is collecting. the trustees, when they gave their report a month or so ago,

said that to increase the assets, you could increase taxes right now. the payroll tax on employees and employers could go from 12.4% to 14.5% right now during this jobless economic situation. madam president, i wouldn't vote to raise taxes on our social security payers now or our employers. it would be unthinkable. the other thing suggested by the trustees that would meet this shortfall is that you could have a cut in benefits right now, an immediate cut of $150 a month from core benefits would do it. well, what kind of option is that? it is no option. we are not going to do that.

everyone knows we're not going to do that. we're not going to raise payroll taxes, and we're not going to cut benefits now. we have more time today than the race against the clock that occurred in 1975. we have the option. for 25 years of doing something that will have a gradual reform to shore up social security and give future retirees sufficient time to prepare for the modest changes in raising the retirement age. if we wait, we have a 23% cut in benefits, so it's imperative for social security's financial future that we join together again in a bipartisan effort, stabilize social security and ensure that full benefits are paid out for the next 75 years.

we can do it if we don't delay. in 1935, when social security was established, there were 40 workers supporting each retiree. 20 years later, in 1955, the ratio was nine workers supporting one retiree. today, there are three workers supporting one retiree. in tandem with these rapidly changing and troubling demographics is the fact that we also must start taking the necessary steps to pay down, not add to our national debt. we know that the vice president biden, along with members of the house and senate, are negotiating. as we speak, the staffs are working and the members have been meeting. they are negotiating to try to do some kind of spending cuts

before the debt ceiling is reached. the $14 trillion debt ceiling will be reached around august 1 this year. so now the vice president and the group from the house and senate are meeting to try to cut spending because we're not going to raise the debt ceiling unless there is real reform. a number of us on both sides of the aisle have agreed we have got to have spending reform, so we don't have to raise the debt ceiling again beyond beyond $14 trillion. so now is the time that we can address the issue of the debt and do it in a responsible way. because if we just use discretionary spending for the reforms needed, we'll never get there. we will never have enough cuts in discretionary spending. why is that?

it's because discretionary spending is less than 50% of the spending of our government. it is the mandatory spending that is the vast majority of the spending. discretionary spending is in the 40% range. 60% is mandatory. so we can't get there for responsible budgetary cuts without looking at the entitlements. so now what kind of entitlements do we have to work with? medicare, medicaid and social security. now, i think we can do a lot to reform medicare, but it is complicated and it will take time. it will take time to work out all the pieces because so many people are dependent on

medicare. it is the people who use medicare, and it is the providers who provide it, as well as the insurance companies that augment and supplement. so there are a lot of moving parts in medicare which we need to address, but what can we do between now and august 8 that would make a real difference that would put us on a more responsible past and begin to make the reforms that would allow a responsible lifting of the debt ceiling, knowing that we're going to cut those deficits so that we won't have to do this again, hopefully ever. that's where social security comes in. my defend and save social security act, which senator jon kyl and i are sponsoring, will do the following. it will raise the age gradually.

under my bill with senator kyl, anyone who is currently 58 years old or older will not be affected at all. for everyone else, the normal retirement age and the early retirement age would increase by three months each year, starting in 2016. the normal retirement age would reach 67 by 2019. now, keep in mind that we're already on the glide path to 67. that's what president reagan and the previous congress did. that was done with the greenspan commission input later, so with that trajectory, we will go to the 67 age. so my bill takes us to 67 in 2019 we would already be going in that direction anyway. it then goes by 2023 to age 68,

and by 2027 to 69. the early retirement age would gradually increase to 63 by 2019, and by 2023, 64. so you have three months per year added to the retirement age, so it is a very gradual increase. to 69 or 64. the second part is the cola. we do not cut core benefits at all, but the cost of living increase is meant to hedge against rising inflation, and when inflation gets above 1%, then you really need, in my opinion, to start helping people with colas. under my plan, we would start colas after inflation is over

1%. the average cola has been 2.2%. the rate of inflation has been about 2.2% over the last ten years. so the average cola would under my bill start after 1%. so if it's 2%, you would get a 1% cola. i believe that 1% reduction in the cola, not core benefits, would be preferrable to the drastic cuts in core benefits that will evolve if we don't do something now. in today's dollars, the 1% would cost, of the increase you would get in a cola, about $11. so you wouldn't get $11 of increase, but you would get your core cola and then after 1%, you

would get the regular cola. that would be expected. so my bill will generate cash flow for social security, maintain a positive balance for the trust fund over the next 75 years. social security's deficits would be eliminated under my bill. we had the social security administration look at our proposal and give us all of our numbers. according to the chief actuary, my proposal would achieve in the next ten years $416 billion in deficit reduction. now, what that means is in perspective for what we're dealing with in the budget talks for the debt ceiling lift, we are talking about a 10-year window. so within that 10-year budget window, we could take out

out $416 billion in deficit reduction, along with the spending cuts in discretionary spending that would be part of any kind of reform. so we can add a responsible cut in the mandatory spending over the 10-year period with these very gradual and small adjustments and help in our deficit reduction, which we have to do if we're going to achieve the reductions that must be done. every year that we wait, we're going to have to shave more off the colas or the age. now, there are some proposals out there that take the age to 70, and maybe over the next 25 years, that will be part of our actuarial table because today

people -- the average life span is 77. so people are wanting to work longer, they are healthier longer. a lot of people are trying to keep working longer. and i think more and more of the companies and employers want that experience, they want the experienced people to stay longer. so it just is part of our actuarial adjustment that we should be making. now, over the next 25 years, where we would be then going into the long-term adjustments that are necessary, if we look, say, out until 2085, we will take $7.2 trillion off the social security requirements. so now you're talking about fiscal responsibility, looking at both sides of our spending

equation, mandatory as well as discretionary, which gives us a real chance to make a difference and to say this congress hopefully working with this president, because it's got to be bipartisan. we can't pass a bill that the president won't sign. and the democrats are in the majority in the senate, republicans are in the majority in the house. so this is going to take some compromising. the republicans don't control the senate and democrats don't control the house and they don't control the white house, so it's not like we're able to say my way or the highway. can't do it, and neither can the president. so we have got to come together if we are going to make the very tough choices that will get our fiscal house in order for future retirees to have the cushion

that social security would be. it's supposed to be a safety net madam president, to talk another day, but we need a better retirement option for our retirees as well, so they can save more in i.r.a.'s, because social security is not supposed to be a pension plan. it's a safety net. it's a supplement. so if we can solve this, the next thing we ought to be doing is adding more options for people to save. we have done some of that with the bill that i sponsored with barbara mikulski, the democrat from maryland, with spousal i.r.a.'s. we have increased the amount that can you save and that a stay-at-home spouse can save and we have made some major good moves in the right direction, but that is different from what we're talking about today, which is social security.

now, we -- i have written a letter to the vice president. i have asked him to include -- to put social security on the agenda because you -- when we finish all these discussions, they are going to come back with cuts in discretionary spending, but it can't be enough when it's less than 40% of our spending. we have got to look at entitlements if we're going to be responsible. now, madam president, since i have filed my bill this week and have had the opportunity with the heritage foundation and the media to talk about my plan, we're getting some good support. of course we're getting the people who say no cuts, no way, no how. we expect that. but it just is burying your head in the sand if you say no way, no how. so we're getting some support. the founder of the association

of mature american citizens, dan weber, who on their website says they now have 160,000 members, the fastest growing organization for older americans in our country, has stated his support for my proposal. they see that changes have to be made. they they have avenue even gone a step further and talked about private accounts, which i certainly support but it is not in my plan. soy appreciate the association of mature americans being willing to do what's right for their constituents, their retirees, but also for the long term, to say we know that if we're going to have a responsible approach, entitlements must be on the table, and social security is one that we can do if it's bipartisan together. my plan will address the issue

now with no tax increases and no cuts in core benefits. it will have a gradual race raise in the retirement age affecting no one before the year 2016, and after that three months a year -- just three months a year in added age to be eligible for social security. and the cost of living adjustment would be adjusted 1% down, and after 1% inflation, then you would have the cost-of-living adjustment but no cuts in core benefits. so the amendments of the past, in 1983, the amendments that have put us back on track with actuarial tables in the past be done again. madam president, it is my great hope that we can step up to the

plate like those who came before us did, do the right thing for the long term and burst the bubble that we can reform spending, only addressing the discretionary side. it is a myth. anyone who tells you with a straight face i'm not going it look at the entitlements is not being a responsible steward of our problem, and that's what we were elected to do, and i hope we can put together a bipartisan coalition working with the president to do it. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. mr. conrad: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: i ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 12:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: and, madam

president, i am going to put in a quorum call at this moment, but then i'm going to ask to be given time to speak on a dire emergency facing my state, so i'll put in a quorum call at this point. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. conrad: madam president? prom the senator from north dakota -- the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: madam president, i ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent to use such time as i might consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: madam president, the city of minot, north dakota, my hometown, is facing a dire emergency. minot and other communities on the sou r*eu s river in -- sou r*eu s river in my home state are facing a flood of epic proportion. i'm told the sirens have just sounded in that town alerting people to evacuate. you can see this is the headline this morning from that town's major newspaper. and the headline is,

"projection: devastation." minot residents evacuate as historic rise in the souris river approaches. this flood is the result of overly wet conditions for a record period of time, a record snow melt combined with record rainfall in the basin above the city. we're now told that perhaps a third of the city will be under water. and unprecedented rains have filled upstream reservoirs to capacity, leading to a dramatic change in the forecast in just 48 hours. on saturday we were told that we could expect a flood level 1,555 feet in the city. on monday we were told 1,566 feet, an 11-foot increase in 48 hours. the result is the fences that have been built up over an

extended period of time that gave us about three feet of free board were absolutely incapable of dealing with a flood of this magnitude and a rise happening this rapidly. this is the headline from yesterday in the minot daily news; kind of summed it all up. "it's a sad day. crests could be ten fight here here -- higher than the crest we had on june 1." it's staggering to understand what's happening here. there are four reservoirs above the city of minot, all filled to capacity. the major reservoir in canada, we have been told the floodgates are wide open. they cannot control the flow of water. whatever comes in is going out, because they have lost control in the ability to meter out the water. and this is what we're seeing

happen all over minot as crews rush to try to provide secondary devices, defenses to protect as much of the city as possible. critical infrastructure, schools, water treatment facilities, other critical infrastructure that's going to be necessary to be able to continue to fight this flood menace. madam president, this was the headline in "the tk*eus mark tribune -- in the bismarck tribune." when you have 11 thousand people forceed to flee, that has a devastating impact. this is a headline from the minot paper on june 20, monday. water woes continue. people in danger zone advised to

be prepared to evacuate. as i said, that evacuation is occurring as i speak. madam president, in the fargo forum, which is the biggest newspaper in our state, had this headline: "11,000 forced out. rising source moves up evacuation time. residents work fast to save what they can." my own cousin and her family have a home that's in danger. they moved everything from the basement to the first floor. now they say they'll have seven feet of water on the first floor of their house. this is happening to people throughout the minot community. and these pictures that ran in the newspapers tell the story in a powerful and clear way. what we have is somebody trying to go into a neighborhood. you can see, there's a police vehicle because they're under

mandatory evacuation. this person tried to get over to perhaps rescue a pet or take care of some last-minute business. maybe turn off the gas. and there he is, stuck in the water as these flood waters rise and rise very rapidly. madam president, this also gives a perspective on what we're confronting. here is the dike levee that had just been raised, and you can see there's maybe two or three feet of free board there and what's coming is ten feet more of water. there is absolutely no way these dikes can hold, no way they can protect the city. these dikes are going to overtop, and thousands of residents are displaced. this shows another shot in this place. they didn't have the dikes covered by plastic. you can see a couple of feet of free board there. but all these houses at risk as

this wall of water comes our way. madam president, this is another shot showing a house. you can see they've got the main dike here. they have also built a secondary dike. all these efforts will prove to be for naught because this wall of water unprecedented. in fact, this is five times higher than in all of recorded history. that's what's happening to this community of minot, north dakota. 40,000 people, the home of one of the major air forces of the united states, home of minuteman missiles, home of b-52 bombers. minot, north dakota, fourth-largest city in my state and about to experience the greatest devastation in the history of the town, a flood worse than the 1969 flood by many feet.

that flood was a record to that point, the 1969 flood. here are the evacuation zones that gives you some sense of how major the relocation is of people out of this city. these are the evacuation zones one through eight that go right on the edge of the river. and you can see all of these people under mandatory evacuation. they're going to have to leave. they're going to have to leave very quickly. madam president, i'd like to end as i began by showing the headline this morning in the "minot daily news." "projection: devastation." there is no way around it. there is no way to respond when the flood forecast changes this rapidly and the water is coming this quickly. the result is these people are going to face high water not for just a day or two.

typically in a flood, the water comes and the water goes. in this circumstance the water is coming and it's not leaving. they have told us as recently as yesterday that we could expect high water until the middle of july. can you imagine to have your house under water from late june until the middle of july? the devastation that will result. and so this headline, "projection: devastation" says it very well. that's what we are faced with in this community. the bottom line is we're going to need help. we're certainly getting it. we deeply appreciate the efforts of the corps of engineers, fema, all of the other federal agencies that are helping, the national guard certainly, hundreds of troops there doing a fantastic job of patrolling these dikes, of helping people move, of making certain that people get out of harm's way.

because number one is protecting people's lives. we also have an obligation to do everything we can to protect as much of the property as is humanly possible. the red cross we very much appreciate the assistance they are giving. i just met with general kowalski of the united states air force. three-star general who has as part of his command the minot air force base. i had called the secretary of the air force yesterday and chief of staff of the air force the day before and asked them to be alert to the need for that base to help us because there is so much that they can provide in assistance being out of harm's way. the base is 12 miles north of the town, so general kowalski came to me this morning to deliver the message that the united states air force is prepared to help in every way possible.

we deeply appreciate that commitment and that support. we remember very well in 1997 when we had record floods in grand forks, north dakota, that is home to one of the other major air force bases of the united states, the extraordinary support and help they provided to us at that time. so the final board i will show is the headline from the "minot daily news" of june 21. "it's a sad day." it is indeed a sad bay, but you know what, the people of north dakota are tough, they are resilient, and they're going to come back, and i have every confidence that we'll rebuild this town and be a tough slog, but the people of north dakota are equal to it and we deeply appreciate the help that we're getting from people all across america. this is -- i have seen america at its best at a time of crisis

when people are down, when they are hurt, when they are devastated by natural disaster, the people of the united states rally and help out. that's the ethic of my state. when a farmer gets sick and can't harvest his crop, the neighbors pitch in. if a barn burns down, the neighbors pitch in. that is really the best of community spirit. that's the best of america, and we're going to be relying on that generosity of spirit in the days ahead. i thank the chair, yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

objection. mrs. murray: madam president, we are going tonight to hear from president obama about his plans for changes to troop levels in afghanistan. last week, i joined with a bipartisan group of my senate

colleagues on a letter to the president urging him to begin a sizable and sustained reduction in troop levels, and i hope he takes the opportunity to do that tonight. but, madam president, with all the talk about troop levels, i want to make sure that we remember this isn't just about numbers. it's about real people with real families, men and women who are fighting to defend our country and are depending on us to do the right thing for them now and when they come home. as chairman of the senate veterans affairs committee, i have an inside look into something that too often doesn't make the front pages, the unseen costs of war, the costs that come after our men and women take that uniform off. we all hear about how expensive war is while we're fighting it, but for so many of our service members, what happens on the battlefield is just the beginning.

we are seeing suicide rates that are much higher among active duty service members and veterans than among civilians. we are finding they are having trouble accessing the mental health care so many of them desperately need. we are watching as these men and women are sent out on tour after tour. too often, they are having a tough time finding a job when they come home, and we owe it to them and their families to do everything we can to get them the support and services they need. madam president, far too many of our service members have sacrificed life and limb overseas, and we must honor them and their sacrifices by making sure we take care of them and their caregivers, not just today, not just when they come home, but for a lifetime. this is going to be expensive and i'm going to fight to make sure it happens and i think it ought to be considered as we think now about the war in

afghanistan. madam president, the member -- enemy we face is real. the taliban and al qaeda have demonstrated through their actions and words they mean us harm. i was sitting in the capitol here on september 11, 2001, when i saw the smoke rising from the pentagon. it is a moment and a day i will never forget. as americans, we know what this enemy is capable off, and we need to do everything we can to make sure something like that never, ever happens again. that is why i believe american forces need to be prepared to fight terror and terrorists wherever they may be. after soifl, afghanistan was providing safe haven for them -- after september 11, afghanistan was providing safe haven for them and america was absolutely right to go in and take them out. but we know terror isn't a country. it's a network and a threat that exists around the world. we have seen that our terrorist

enemies are not tied to a specific location. they are not bound by lines on a map. they are in afghanistan, but they are also in yemen, in iraq, in pakistan and elsewhere. in fact, our top target in the war against terrorism and osama bin laden was just killed in a brave operation in a safehouse in pakistan. so, madam president, i think it's absolutely critical we have a military that is prepared to take on our threats wherever they may be. so as we consider the wars we are fighting now in afghanistan be and in iraq, we need to be sure we aren't overextending the service members we are counting on, that we continue to have the financial resources available to defend ourselves against the very real threat of terrorism that continues to exist, and that the costs and resources of boots on the ground for years on end doesn't inhibit our ability to go after terrorists wherever

they are, and we need to know that our military and intelligence operations are nimble and have the resources they need to keep our nation safe from all threats. madam president, we have been fighting in afghanistan for ten years. i voted for that war. it was the right thing to do. our brave men and women in uniform have done everything we have asked of them, including finding osama bin laden. but we need to make sure today that our strategies are adapted to meet the threats of today. leaving large levels of troops in afghanistan is not the best use of our resources, especially in these tough economic times. it's time to redeploy, rebuild our military and focus on the broader war on terror. i am hopeful that president obama will make an announcement tonight that reflects those current realities, and i'm going to keep working with this administration, the pentagon, the department of veterans affairs and all others so as we

fight to keep america safe and take care of our service members coming home, we do it right. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president, the senate is in a quorum call, is that true? the presiding officer: it is. mr. reid: i would ask consent that that be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to the motion to proceed to calendar number 75 be vished and the senate adopt the motion to proceed to calendar number 75, s. 697, the

presidential apointment efficiency and streamlining afnlgt. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the clerk will report the bill, please. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 75, s. 769, a imil to reduce the number of executive positions subject to senate csmghts. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent now that the committee substitute amount be agreed to and considered original text for the purp purpose of further amendment. there be a period of morning business for debate only until 3:00 p.m. today. any senators can call up amendments. no amendment offered to the bill be divisible. further, in addition to oament amendments offered to the bill, amendments by senator vitter relating to czars and that which relates to i.m.f. bail jolts and coburn which relates to duplication.

further, that the vitter and demint amendments be subject to 60-vote thresholds and the coat burn amendment be subject to a two-thirties vote thresho threshold. the senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill as amed, if amended, that the vote on passage being subject to a 60-vote threshold. if the bill does not achieve that threshold, the bill be returned to the calendar. upon disposition of the matter, the senate proceed to s. res res.116, and relevant amendments be in order. finally, the senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution, as amended, if amended. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. reid: madam president, this means that senators will not need to obtain unanimous consent prior to setting aside pending amendments. i would also say i wanted to hold off saying anything about this until we got this

agreement, but madam president, the work done on this bill by senator schumer and alexander has been work that has been ongoing for years, and it took their partnership working together as the two men that were on the rules committee, to move this forward. it has been very, very hard to get from here to there. i have every bit of confidence that we will move forward and do for the first time in decades a streamlining of how presidential nominations are approved. this is good. this is what we talked about doing at the beginning of this year, and we need to continue doing that. i also express my appreciation to the chairman and rank member, members of the homeland security committee, senators lieberman and coul linls, for doing additional hard work in sorting through what the committees

should do in approving nominations. they've done a good job because we have a lot of -- virtually every committee chair -- in years past we wound up getting nothing done because the chairs simply thought that they needed to have a hand in what went on in all of these nominations. so that senator lieberman and collins did a good job of getting us to this point. as soon as this done, we'll move to some changes that senators schumer and alexander have approved. so, again, i see my friend, the senator from tennessee, on the floor, and again as he does on virtually everything, he is a very thoughtful person, always trying to work for the betterment of this body, and i'm grateful that he and senator schumer have done all the good

work they have on this legislation. mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president, i would like to thank the majority leader and the republican leader, senator mcconnell, for the way they've worked on this legislation. not just on this bill but when they were the respective whips of their parties several years ago each of them worked on trying to help improve the senate's ability to do its oversight by doing a better job without advice and consent responsibility. that's one of our better-known responsibilities. it is a constitutional responsibility. it's an article 1,section 2. but as part of that advice and consent responsibility, the senate has the responsibility to define which other positions the president may appoint and that's what this is about. senator collins and senator lieberman have also worked for many years on this, and they will be here in a few minutes to open the debate. senator schumer and i will come

to the floor about 2:40 and make our statements on behalf of the rules committee. i thank the majority leader and the republican leader for doing this because this isn't the most glamourous piece of legislation, and it is not so glamourous -- what i am about to say is not so glamourous either. but this bill has come to the floor by unanimous consent. that means there were 100 members of this body who could have objected and none has. aintdz to thank the senators, many of whom have very different views on this bill, for agreeing to this agreement by which we are proceeding. we are not proceeding under a cloture voavment we are proceeding in the way the senate ought to work day in and day out. members have the opportunity to offer relevant amendments. i'm sure that many will. i thank the majority leader and the republican leader for their forebearance in that way. we have to have an element of trust in the senate with each other, so i'm going to do my best to make sure that the relevant amendments that come before us, whether they be democratic or republican, are

voted on. so, i thank all those involved. i hope that senators will be preparing their relevant amendments, if they're not already filed or not already enumerated in the agreement. i will -- i will refrain from making my remarks until my colleague, senator schumer, the chairman of the rules committee, comes to the floor at 2:40 and will await the arrival of senator collins and senator lieberman, who are the chairman and ranking member of the committee that reported the bill to the senate. i thank the president, and i yeefl. -- i thank the president, and i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: