plan. he made good on the pledge late tuesday, holding from a quorum call to allow a fellow republican to speak. greg, independent caller, you are next. >> yes. thank you so much for taking my call. i'm 50 years old, i'm a disabled veteran, and i get social security. and then the veterans department, they charge me money for my medicine. so it's paying from one government agency to the other. and then what i did is when the obama stimulus plan hit, i took the amount of population in the united states and the money they gave to the corporations to bail them out, it worked out to be $287,000 for every man, woman, and child in the united states. they would have paid off their homes, they could have paid

college tuition, they would have bought tv and spent the munch more wisely. and another thing. i know we are our brothers keepers. i know we have to police the world. it's our obligation to humanity. i understand that. but at what cost? we destroy ourselves? >> host: all right. >> guest: let me make two points to his comments. first of all, the last thing i put in the senate record as a u.s. senator was a statement that we need to withdraw from afghanistan. i mean if we are going to fight terrorists, let's fight terrorists where they are, not where they were. everyone understands. afghanistan is not where terrorists are at the present time. >> host: we talked to the former intelligence. >> guest: that's not the case. the intelligence committee acknowledged they are not. in fact, i think the official estimate was fewer than 100 al qaeda in afghanistan. in afghanistan, we are now nation building. it costs us over $100 billion a

year in afghanistan. it's time for us after nine to ten long years to decide to withdraw our troops. we can't afford to do this. and we've been there nine or ten years. i wake up every morning and read in the paper this is, well, maybe the security forces will be ready in five years or three. what's been happening for nine years if they don't have security forces ready now? they have a corrupt government, largely corrupt in afghanistan. it's just time for us to begin to withdraw. and it's hard for a country to do that. but a country should be able to make these -- the decisions to do that when it's necessary. let me also mention, we talked about the financial scandal. i'm not here to sell books. in fact, the book has been out for a while anyway. i wrote a book called "reckless" how debt nearly bankrupted america. and how to fix it. i wrote that because -- i wrote it before the financial scandal and it was published right during the scandal.

but i very much opposed and fought against repealing the protections put in place, glass-steagall and others after the great depression. republicans and democrats said, no, no, no it's old fashioned. let's take the protections down. within a decade, and so -- the reason that i mention that is it's not done. the remedy -- the financial regulation bill is not nearly enough. too big to fail. there's no restriction against being too big to fail. it's just gambling. we've got financial institutions still trading them on their own accounts. we've got much more to do to bring to bear the financial service industry to say you've got an important role in this economy. let's perform it the way it

should be. >> host: you are writing too much books. what will they be about? >> guest: this is from the agent but my first two. the publisher who wanted me to be involved in two books, fiction, dealing with energy. losely called ecothrillers. the first will be out, i think, in march of next year. >> host: more about the president's schedule today, he's also meeting with democratic leaders from the senate, and politico has the story that reid and durbin pretty over key issues. >> host: what do you think? >> guest: i think the simpson-bowles commission had it right. almost everything has to be dealt with here if we are going to put the country back on track for a long time. i think we should be quick to say social security is not

causing today's deficits. just isn't. there's enough money coming in and enough interest on social security accounts to cover today's cost. but in the long term, social security and especially the exploding cost of medicare have to be dealt with. and then the rest of government we got to tighten our dealt. but it's also the case that you got to restore some of the revenue that was lost for the bush tax cuts and start paying for wars. you want to send soldiers aboard to risk their lives? how about asking the american people to pay their cost? >> host: is that your dream budget? we have a tweet. >> guest: i think you go through everything the federal government is doing. and try to determine which of these programs might have been wise yesterday but no longer are justifiable. there are some of those. we have to root out the waste in government. there's plenty. can i give you an anecdote that comes from some hearings that i held talking about waste, fraud,

and abuse. if you want to know about waste in the defense, there's plenty, talk to -- in order to find him, you are going to track him down. he's in a prison. he was a 22-year-old that had a corporate shell, corporation, and he hired his best friend, 26-year-old massage therapist. the 22-year-old and 26-year-old massage therapist behind an unmarked door in miami, florida began getting contracts with the federal government. they got a $300 million contract with the department of defense. $300 million contract. it was awarded these two to provide weapons and ammunition to the afghan fighters. of course, very quickly -- number one, they didn't have the experience. number two, they shouldn't have been given the contract. very quickly, they defrauded the government. i called the three star general to my office to say how on earth could it have happened? it was unrepentant. he said knowing what i know, i

still would have issued the contract. when he left, i was furious. we had an awful meeting. those kind of things really fleece the american taxpayer. there's a lot of it over in do deposition exhibit and -- dod and the contract. it's not just the defense. plenty of waste. let's tighten the belts and waste of revenue as well and pay for the worse. >> host: republican in florida. vick you are on the air. thanks for waiting. >> hello, senator. your welcome. i had a question. i heard you talking about all of the waste in medicare. i've been in health care for about 20 years. i can attest there is a great, great amount of waste. i would ask a question, would you support repeal of the medicare modernization of 2003? that privatized medicare, but

elective, and i noticed it has become popular among the old folks. >> host: are you talking about part d? >> caller: part d as well as part a and b. the modernization is medicare advantage. it's the privatization. >> guest: yeah, it's interesting. medicare advantage was deemed by those who supported it, i did not. but deemed as something that would bring down costs. in fact, it costs much more than medicare. more money is spent for it and in support of it than traditional medicare. it's part of the privatization issue. it ends up costing the taxpayer less. i think it should be repealed. that money used in a more effective way. >> host: we'll go to jim next. democrat in st. charles, missouri. >> caller: good morning. i'm a regular for c-span regarding the program now and then i listen to a lot of the house and senate proceedings. first of all, let me say i'm so sorry that senators like byron

dorgan, jeff bingaman, and others have quit us. but to make my point, several years ago senator dorgan gave a speech complete with charts showing the amount of money that taxpayers are spending on one projects, on the tigris and ewe fray tease river in iraq. here's home, i wish he could summarize that for the listener and discuss that. >> first of all, when you use the word quick -- i served starting at age 26. almost no serves in state elective office beginning at that age. so in the state capitol building

for ten years, u.s. house and senate for 30 years. i just, you know, i wanted to do other things. i thought it was one the great privileges of my life. but i wanted to move on to do other things. plus i've seen people stay too long. i've seen that often. i did not want to be one of them. it was a great privilege to be there. >> host: before you go on, there's a tweet here from somebody that wants to know very glad to see you. one the few great countries. wants to know if you'll ever return to public service. >> well, a sweet old lady grabbed me by the elbow as i got off of the plate a couple of months ago, senator dorgan i'm so sorry that you have expired. i haven't expired. i did retire from the congress. i don't know -- i doubt very much whether i will return to public life. one never knows. i wanted to do other things. i'm teaching, i'm writing, i'm consulting, the kinds of things

i was interested in doing. i have great reverence for the congress. i want the congress and president to succeed. i want the country to do well. let me do this very briefly, just a few seconds. i held a couple of hearings on the issues of contract to provide water to military installations in iraq. the halliburton or brown and -- they received. they were providing water for showers and shaving that was more contaminated than water from the euphrates river. we have complaints that soldiers were getting sick, both the pentagon and also halliburton or kellogg-brown-root denied it happened. he asked wouldn't it be nice if

the money rather than been wasted or spent been available for water projects in this country, the answer is yes. my heart goes out to the people in minot, north dakota, the people are suffering unbelievable flood. it has somewhere on 4,000 homes that are in the flood. it's just a devastating circumstances. my heart goes out to them. >> host: you are next. >> caller: good morning. i have an observation to share. it makes no sense to me whatever to go after medicaid or rather medicare until we have rectified the situation with medicaid. i know from personal observation here in texas that virtually every illegal alien in the country is on medicaid thanks in large part to efforts by organizations such as catholic charities who provides free legal -- paralegal services for

illegal aliens to sign them up for every benefit the country has to offer, knowing full well these people are illegal aliens. what do you think about that? >> guest: you know, i understand the great concern. we don't want to create circumstances if you say to someone if you sneak into this country or come to the country the full range of the benefits will be available to you. the other side of the discussion is one that would expect to feel the same way i do. let's talk to an ill child coming from illegal parents. should they be able to get health care for the sick child? or would you look and say, we're sorry the circumstances of your family comes to america means we vent give you medical treatment.

it seems unfathomable that it's someone we would turn away. i don't think we ever say to people who are very, very ill we're going to deny medical treatment. >> host: let's go to steve. independent caller. >> caller: senator, thanks for being on this morning. although i respect you, i think you are a major part of the problem. just a few minutes ago, you mentioned you were in public service since you were 26. i guess -- i don't know your age, that would be 30 or 40 years ago. i think that is a big part of the problem. we have people in government service for way too many years. you know, you talk about -- in both parties do this, please understand that. they want short term mixes. you know, they can blame president obama for the last eight years, and the period he's been in, credit clinton for what he did in the finances.

this stuff goes back 30-40 years in the '60s. you talk about paying for two wars. how about the war on poverty? we've spent much more on the war on poverty. what have we gotten from that? >> host: okay. let's listen to senator dorgan. >> guest: i spoke with talented people. i think some of the best had been unbelievable experience. he didn't mention term limits, the implication of term limits. i can go through a whole list, lyndon johnson that served for many, many years in the congress. some who i have served with in the congress who have been there ten, twenty, thirty years. i just disagree that you would in any other circumstances go to

a mechanic and select the one with the least amount of service. same is true in public service. you may have heard me, i decided to leave and retire because i didn't want to be there too long. i do see people staying too long. many of those who are there for a long period, i could mention a couple, but i shouldn't who are on capitol hill today have been there a long time and do an extraordinary job. there are others who have been there for a long time and probably should find other things. >> host: all right. he served in the senate from 1992 to 2011. now senior policy advisory and doing other things here in d.c. let's go to ed. republican caller, deer born, michigan. >> caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i wanted to mention i think what they are saying in regards to social security and medicare and medicaid, they should do away

with it. and because of the fact that they know so much about what we need we should get the insurances that they have after such a short period of time of being in office. >> guest: first of all, i wouldn't get rid of medicare and medicaid. we ought to be able to live with success. the reason that we have success here is we created social security when people lived on average to be 63. now i grew up in small town, graduated in high school glass of -- class of '09. if you have a program that says we'll pay you benefits on 65, on average you are going to live 63. that's not a hard program. instead of 63, some 50, 60, 70 years later, people live to be 78. that's success. that puts a strain on social

security and medicare. we can live with success, we can make adjustments. i wouldn't success we get rid of the programs. i think there are program that is are very, very important for people that work through their work years and reach their retirement years and in the old days wouldn't find health care. do you know of health care that says my business model is to go find a sick 80-year-old. we'll tell them a policy. they don't want to do that. they want to find them a strapping young 21-year-old because they aren't going to need health care. i disagree with the suggestion that we should abolish medicare and social security. times have changed. people are living longer. we can do that. >> host: what is going to happen with the debt talks? what type of proposal? >> guest: i know what must happen. on october 2nd -- >> host: august 2nd? >> guest: excuse me. i apologize. act -- on august 2nd, they have

to reach the debt limit. they have to do that. they have to resolve to be a long term fix for the range of things that ails us at this point. we can't continue to spend money that we don't have. we can't. you have to reconcile that which we want the country to do. do you want good roads, schools you are proud of. all of these things, we need to reconcile what we want with how much revenue we can bring in. law enforcement, fire protection, defense department, teachers, so on. we have to come to grips with that. what's happen in the last ten years, longer than that actually, is we just spend money. you put it on the debt. you know what, that's not going to work much longer. we're in a debt crisis at this point. >> host: tax rev mu. wall street call it is a stealth tax hike, the discussion about whether or not to include elimination of tax deductions for wealthier americans. then they go on to talk about

the bush tax cuts. saying they are scheduled to return when the george w. bush tax rates expire at end of the 2012. that means while the statutory top rate will rise to $39.6 million taxpayers, $39n't 6, millions of taxpayers will pay a top rate closer to 41% as they lose the deductions. is that fair? >> guest: those are the tax rates that were paid. we had a federal surplus. alan greenspan and others said they could hardly sleep because they were going to pay it down too rapidly. the president, greenspan, they said they supported tax cuts to give back the surpluses. the fact is the surpluses didn't exist. not beyond the first two years. we went to war, we were attacked by terrorists. a whole series of things. seems to me that tax cuts that were established for the purpose of giving back surplus that doesn't exist ought to be

allowed to expire as one part of fixing what's wrong with the fiscal policy in the country. you can't do that without also pledging, not just pledging but doing the hard work saying we're going to cut spending as well. you got to do both. >> host: wall street journal goes on to criticize republicans that might be eliminating tax deductions -- >> guest: listens, this is the house organ for the chamber of merit. that's not the way i mean it. when you have companies, some of the biggest companies in the country making billions of dollars and paying zero in taxes, less that you pay, greta, it raises the question of isn't there a need to close some of those loopholes? if the wall street journal says when you close loopholes and ask everybody to pay their cost of

what we do as a country, if you are charged with increasing taxes or doing something detrimental, shame on those. that's not the case. >> host: pat. democratic in st. louis. you are on the air. >> caller: hi. so good to hear from you. i worked and voted for president obama. i'm so disappointed with the incompetency. you know, i can't take a vacation this year. i know my family can't take a vacation. i see his wife michelle is over with spain, in africa the whole family. that costs money to the taxpayers. you know, i've made sacrifices. when the president said we all had to share in sacrifices, my family did it. i see him flying around going from one city to the other. why isn't he staying in washington, d.c. and getting the job done? i see him playing golf. you know, it's just not good pr to see the president and his wife living like a king and a

queen, and yet the rest of us can't get jobs and when he does talk about jobs, it's just like let's spend more money. >> host: okay. i want to get a response from the support. we'll leave it there. >> guest: you know, the point she makes is important. i like the president. i confess i like him. he inherited a really tough situation. the month he came into office, we lost 675,000 jobs that month alone. that tells you how tough things were with the economy. you know, he's trying very hard. i understand the point that you make about what you see. and i -- you know, i understand that. it is the case that 20 million or more people woke up this morning in the country really wanting to go to work and provide for themselves and their family. they can't find a job. it causes great misery. there's no social program in the country as important as a good job that paying well. that makes everything else possible. so, you know, i really think

that this president and the congress need to work together. and i really hope when all of the dust settles and all of the shouting is done at the end of july, i hope august 2nd will have come and gone and we've made the right decision about extenting the debt and serious people will have rolled up and how do you take the country back in track to do the right things art -- right things for the country's future. >> host: we have about 10 minutes. ruth, republican in new jersey. >> caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i wonder if the north american free trade agreement has anything to do with the economy and china owning our debt and bush and cheney raping our country on a daily basis where we did lose 675,000 jobs the first month that obama was in. do you think that has to do anything to do with it? >> guest: nafta does have

something. i wrote a book about not just nafta, but "take this job and ship it." it was about the circumstances that have allowed this country to be in a position of saying it's okay to export american jobs elsewhere. it's not okay with me. i mean, you know, the johnny paycheck song "take this job and shove it" i ripped off his title. we reward companies that say we are going to lock our plant in the u.s., fire our workers, and move them to china and ship it back. i think that's insane. >> host: you said earlier with chinese countries. is that an issue? >> guest: no, no, i shouldn't have said chinese. working on business with the u.s. companies and foreign companies. i'm not lobbying for anybody. we do a lot -- it's an international economy. it shouldn't be an international economy in which we lose and they win. and that's true.

we'll probably talk a bit about the so-called trade agreements. you know, korea is a good example. korea sends up generally six, seven, 800,000 cars a year. we are able to sell about 6,000 in south korea. why is that? because 98, 99% of the cars in south korea that are driven on their streets are made in south korea because that's the way they want it. so they keep our cars out, they want to ship their cars here. that means jobs there and fewer jobs here. i think that's unfair way for our country to allow competition to exist with other countries. >> "los angeles times" reports g.o.p. box over the job division. the white house and --

>> guest: trade adjustment assistance, taa, it's an acknowledgment when you do a trade agreement people are going to lose their jobs. it gives help to people who's jobs are effected by the trade agreement. you do an adjustment assistance. let's do trade agreements. i'm not suggesting isolationism or anything of the sort. when we negotiate, maybe we could act like olympians. we look down to see usa. today the trade negotiators ought to wear a jersey for a change that says i'm negotiating

on behalf of the u.s. we care about our economy and jobs and the american people's future. we want trade to be fair between china and the u.s., europe and the u.s., korea and the u.s. when you look at the trade agreements and you wrote a book about it, that's why i wrote the book. we have simply gotten stiffed. that's why we see the manufacturing plants have moved wholesale overseas. they don't make one pair of levi. little regular wagon. they are gone. fruit of the loom. you know, these people that -- on these television commercials with grapes, they dance fruit of the loom shorts and t-shirts. they left. i could go forever talking about these things. but the lady that asked the question about nafta is absolutely right. we lost a lot of jobs as a result of the trade agreement. >> host: a few more phone calls. >> caller: yes, good morning to you and your guest. greta, we appreciate what c-span

is doing for us. the transparency and the open window to all three branches of their government. but like the phase about president obama. you know, about three years ago, he promised accountability and transparency. unfortunately, i don't think he was going to use that again when it comes back up in 2012. because he's failed that. but in any case, i appreciate what this senator is saying today. because he's making confusions about what's been going on in america today. there's so much greed and corruption, morals and ethics has been thrown out the window. every kind of problem that's been passed on to american citizens come from the american leader. and the bad thing about it is as he just said the three star general showed no repentance. he's right, the leaders aren't

showing any kind of repentance on the evil going on in america. >> host: thanks. let me move to john, since we are running out of time. >> caller: good morning. senator, thank you for your service. i basically agree with you, senator. er senator, i don't think american should solve the economic woes on the backs of the poor and middle class. it doesn't take much intelligence to recognize that. i think the democrats have a problem and in their dialogue in the fact that they talk about all of the entitlements should be on the table. of course, they talk about medicare and social security. but democrats on the other hand talk about raising revenues, when they should be referring to the bush tax cuts and subsidies for corporations and the tax loopholes as entitlements for the rich. i've never heard one democrat refer to that. so that when republicans talk about putting all entitlements on -- >> "washington journal" airs every morning live at 7 a.m. on

c-span. after a short recess, the senate is coming back in. earlier today, senators approved a measure that eliminated the process from lower level nominations. now the senate is considering relateddage of rule changes to expedite other nominations.

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, they will be. mr. harkin: mr. president, because of the heavy fires that

are blasin blazing in new mexic, our colleague, senator udale, cannot be here because he's out there dealing with the forest fires. he has an amendment that he has filed, s. res. 116, the bill now before us on the senate, and on his behalf i will be calling it up, amendment number 522, and i just want to just take a couple of minutes to explain the amendment. basically the amendment is very simple, and i will read it in its entirety. "the second undesignated paragraph of paragraph 2 of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate is amended to read as follows: is it the sense of the senate that the debate shall be brought it to a clees and if that

question shall be decided in the u.a.e. firmive by three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn except on a motion to amentd senate rules in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting, then said motion, measure, or other matter pending before the senate or the unfinished business shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of." and this is -- that's already rule 22. here is the part that senator udall would amend. "on a nomination to an executive branch position requiring the advice and consent of the senate, the necessary affirmative vote you shall be a majority of the senators duly chosen and sworn." so, the udall amendment of which i am a proud cosponsor would basically say that on an executive branch nominations that come before the senate, that -- that when debate is brought to a close, that there

would not b need to be 60 votes. you could have an affirmative 51 votes, and that measure would pass. that person -- that nomination would pabsed by the senate. -- would be passed by the senate. therefore, we would not need this supermajority if 60 votes -- of 60 votes to pass a nominee. again, it comes as no surprise to members of the senate that senator udall and i have worked together to try to reform the rules, to reduce to an absolute minimum, if not get rid of it entirely, the filibuster. well, that's obviously -- obviously we never accomplished that. but it seems to me that as we're changing the rules here on changing the policy on how we're going to deal with nominees, and i think this is long overdue, i think this is the proper time to address this position, this

point; that on a nomination to an executive branch, there really ought to be 51 votes, not 60 votes. and so that's what the amendment really does. it says -- it just basically say, on a nomination that it only requires 51 vietnams to pass the nomination and not -- 51 votes to pass the nomination and not 60 votes. so, mr. president, i ask consent -- the i guess the pending business -- may i ask the parliamentarian -- mr. president, what is the penning business? is if coburn amendment 521? the presiding officer: the pending question is that coburn amendment. mr. harkin: mr. president, i would ask consent to set aside that amendment and call up the amendment number 522. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. harkin for

mr. udall of new mexico and himself proposals an amendment numbered 522. at the end of the resolution -- mr. harkin: mr. president, i ask that further reading of the resolution -- i already read it. officer without objection. harass i already read it. basically to repeat what if does is it just says on nominations to the executive branch, it would not require 60 votes, only 51 votes of the senators. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. alexander: make a point of order thew the amendment offered by the senator in iowa is not relevant. the presiding officer: the chair sustains the point of order. the amendment falls. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. thank you, mr. president. this recalls the debate we had at the beginning of the year when a number of senators felt like we needed to make the senate a more effective institution, which is always a noble goal, but we had some differences of opinion about how to do that. one group of senators, senator udall, senator harkin and others, renewed the effort to basically say the senate would be a majoritarian body which would decide questions by 51

votes. for most americans, that sounds like the normal order of business, and it is. we grow up in our first and second and third grades selecting class president. if you get a majority of the votes, you win. but in the senate over its history, we've had a different process because the senate serves a different function. and the house is a majoritarian institution. you win a majority in the house, a freight train rolls through the house and the bill is passed and sent to the senate. the senate throughout its history has been the saucer into which the tea was poured to cool a little bit. in other words it, takes a little more deliberation here to pass something. that can be very frustrating. it can slow things down but the process was designed that way. otherwise there wouldn't be any need for two different bodies here. so we have one body which can change with every election every two years and pass something like the health care law by a

majority vote or some other piece of legislation, or let's take another example. ending the secret ballot in union elections, which the house of representatives, when it had democratic control, did pass. it didn't pass the senate because in the senate under our rules, you need 60 votes to pass most important pieces of legislation. now the shoe's on the other foot too. if the republican house of representatives were to pass, let's say, a tort reform bill that my democratic friends didn't like, we'd have a hard time passing it over here because it would take 60 votes, and that would mean that we 47 senate republicans, even if we were all for it, would have to persuade 13 or 14 of our democratic friends to join. so the theory of the senate is that it forces consensus. it doesn't always work that way, but that's the idea. we've had a pretty good example of it with the legislation we're

debating the last few days where we have a coalition of democrats and republicans who agree we need to change the senate rules. because we did, we were taoeubl move the bill to the -- able to move the bill to the floor without the cloture motion. we were able to allow any relevant amendment to come to the floor. we were able to pass a bill yesterday, and it looks like we're going to be able to pass a resolution today that would complete our work. and the bill this morning got 79 votes. and hoeup that the resolution -- i hope that the resolution this afternoon gets at least that many votes. and that's the way the senate should work. so, i'm glad that the amendment offered by the senator from iowa on behalf of senator udall is out of order and not relevant to this discussion. and even if it were relevant, i think it would be the wrong step for us to take. i think it is better to have a senate that forces consensus by

requiring 60 votes on big, on big issues. that avoids what alexis de tocqueville called the tyranny of the majority in his book "democracy in america." he saw two great features of democracy that -- he saw two great threats to the new american democracy at that time. one was russia, as he said. he turned out to be prescient on that. the other was the possibility of the tyranny of the majority, that the majority would get control and simply run over minority rights. you can't do it in the senate, not in the united states senate because you've got to get 60 votes on a big issue. and that means if you set out to pass most pieces of legislation, if you want to do it in a purely partisan way, you're not likely to succeed. if you want to do it in a way that gets a result, you're going to have to form a coalition of republicans and democrats as we

have here with these rules. now, this discussion by senator udall, senator harkin and others wasn't for naught because it initiated a debate that ended up some changes in the senate procedures, which we think are for the better. one was the abolition of secret holds which some senators in this body, such as senator wyden, senator grassley have been advocating for years, more than a decade. that was done. it resulted in the legislation that we passed yesterday which abolishes -- which helps the senate exercise its constitutional duty to advise and consent by doing a better job of deciding which nominations do not deserve advise and consent. so we eliminated the requirement for advise and consent on 169 positions of the 1,400 that now require advise and consent. most of those were part-time advisory boards; didn't need

that. we eliminated nearly 3,000 advise and consent requirements on public health officers and such people. they're very valuable federal employees, but we were confirming them in boxes. no senator knew who he or she was confirming. and that trivializes the whole constitutional duty of advise and consent which is in the constitution of the united states in article 2, section 2. another reform that we are making and will proceed with is reducing the phenomenon of innocent until nominated, which i've spoken about several times on the floor, which is whereby we take an unsuspecting citizen of the united states, the president recruits him or her to a position in the government and then they begin to go through this gauntlet of complicated forms that have built up over the years. first with the executive branch,

where you're asked to fill out every place you lived since you were 17 years of age and define income three different ways, so is that by the time you get to the senate committee whose job it is to investigate and confirm you and you've filled out all their forms, you're bound to make some mistakes. you're hauled up with the spotlights on you; you've told a lie inadvertently. i gave the example earlier today of the former senator howard baker, having to spend $250,000 of his own money and accountants and lawyers when president bush nominated him to be the ambassador to japan, absolutely ridiculous. and republicans and democrats who have served in personnel offices, chiefs of staff to the last several presidents, all have said that this practice of innocent until nominated is a great disservice to the american government. i see senator schumer on the floor. he and i will be meeting with

the white house personnel officer as soon as this legislation is signed by the president, approved by the house and signed by the president and hope that the working groups that will be set up under the legislation will produce what we call a smart form, so that if the president asks to you serve your government, you can fill out a single form for most questions and that the various executive branches that need the information can get the same information, and perhaps even when your nomination is sent to the united states senate, perhaps even we can take some of that information and use the same form to get it for us. it didn't interfere with the separation of powers. the executive can do whatever it wishes to do. we in the senate can do whatever we wish to do. so, we made some progress as a result of those discussions earlier in the year. it's modest progress, but i think any time you eliminate 169

positions out of 1,400, any time you expedite about 280 more, any time you stop the practice of confirming box loads of nominees without even knowing what's in there, that we've done something to slow down to avoid the trivializeization of our constitutional duty to advise and consent, and by deciding who not to, does not require advise and consent, and then we can make a further step with avoiding the innocent until nominated phenomenon, the work that senator harkin, senator udall and others have done, we'll have made some progress, even though we don't adopt their rule to turn the senate into a majoritarian institution instead of one that operates on large issues by 60 votes. i appreciate the spirit by which senator harkin offered the

amendment that senator udall worked on the amendment. i think they helped initiate some steps which have made the senate a more effective institution. we still have a ways to go, and we'll continue to work on those things. i see senator schumer is here. i would like to compliment him for his work on this and the way he's gone about it. he and i working with the majority leader and the republican leader created an environment for this bill, as i said earlier, that didn't require the enforcement of a cloture petition, that allowed all relevant amendments to come to the floor, that allowed all the debate senators seemed to want and that passed the bill and we hope is coming to a point where we can pass the resolution and take these steps to improve the effectiveness of the senate. so i thank the president, and i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous

consent that at 6:10 the senate proceed to a vote in relation to the coburn amendment number 521, that all other provisions of the previous order with respect to the coburn amendment remain in effect, that upon disposition of the coburn amendment the managers' amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, that following the disposition of the managers amendment the senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution as amended, there there be no other amendments or motions in points of order to the resolution other than budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive. further that the motions to be reconsidered be considered made and laid upon the table and that before the vote senator coburn, the senator from oklahoma, be given five minutes to speak on his amendment. just before the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: thank you. mr. president, unless my colleague from tennessee -- i'll read a brief statement about what we're voting on. i encourage my colleague to support senate resolution 116 which streamlines certain

nominations through the senate. once again i'd like to thank my good friend and colleague, senator alexander, for his hard work on this resolution and his insight into the nomination process. i'm grateful he's the ranking member of the rules committee. i want to thank the chairman and ranking members of the homeland security committee, senators lieberman and collins, for the steadfast dedication to the efforts to reform the way the senate conducts business. additionally, leader reid and republican leader mcconnell gave their support and time to work through this package. mr. president, earlier today we passed the first piece of the nomination reform package, s. 679 which eliminates certain positions from senate confirmation. it is our hope this package thaws out this resolution. the resolution passed throughout our committee, the rules committee back in may, this resolution did, and it's a bipartisan effort. now we're considering the corresponding resolution which streamlines other nominations. for certain nominations, once received they'll be placed in a new category of the calendar.

at that point the chair will send out the questionnaire once he or she certifies that it's been returned, the nomination will move to a second new category in the calendar. it will sit there for ten days. and if there are no objections, the nomination will then move directly to the executive calendar with the presumption that these noncontroversial positions would be passed by unanimous consent. now at any time while the nomination is either in either of these two categories, anyone can object, including the chair, and have that nomination referred back to the full committee like any other nominee. we hope this will clear the way for confirmation of these positions. additionally, this resolution will allow committees to turn their focus to issues that affect the american voter. time spent on nomination hearings and markups can now be spent on other nominees oregon legislation to improve the condition, for instance, of our middle class. as i said earlier, we're in no way abdicating our advise and consent duties.

we're enhancing them. i encourage my colleagues to vote for them amendment and vote against the amendment of senator coburn. with this amendment, the senate can turn back to the pressing issues that affect us all. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you. i would advise the senior senator from new york that i will ask unanimous consent, if it's agreeable to him, that when i finish my few words that we go directly to the vote. mr. schumer: the vote was in

the resolution, -- mr. coburn: you don't want to move it up? mr. schumer: no. we need it at 6:10. if the senator wants to speak beyond five minutes, that's okay with us. mr. coburn: i will withdraw my unanimous consent, mr. president. this is a very straightforward amendment. the people who vote against this rule change, what they're going to be telling you is they don't want you to know what's going on in the senate, and they don't want us to know what's going on in the senate, because all this rule does is make it a force of habit of the senate that before we look at legislation, we ought to determine whether it duplicates things that are already out there in the government. and we ought to determine if it's overlapping to other programs. had this amendment been in effect, a third of what we passed in the past wouldn't pass, because we would then see,

which we're ignore of today, all the other programs that are available and out there that accomplish the same purposes for which we pass another new program. on one of my committees in this year -- in the last year, not this year but in the last year, colleagues have offered amendments, well-intentioned, good motives to accomplish a good purpose, but they lack knowledge, but what they didn't know, and both amendments were ultimately withdrawn when they were explained to them that in fact we already had programs that did exactly the same thing. and so what we have is we have over $200 billion worth of duplication now within the federal government, and this is a simple, straightforward amendment that says before we consider things on the floor, it's less than 700 bills over two years, that the c.r.s. would, in fact, tell us here's what you're doing, here's what the government is already doing in these areas.

so that we don't end up with duplication, so that we don't end up with overlapping and that we actually get results from what we're doing. and i would remind my colleagues that we have just in the last g.a.o. report, we have multitudes of duplicative programs, and i will repeat them so people will know, and i also would state this is a bipartisan amendment. in the spirit of what the senator from new york and the senator from tennessee have done. this amendment has senator udall, nor mccaskill, senator burr and senator mccain as well as senator collins and senator paul and senator scott brown. so this isn't a partisan move. this is a move about information and knowledge so that we make informed decisions. but just for the record, what

the g.a.o. told us less than five months ago is that we have 101 programs across four different agencies for surface transportation. that's 101 sets of bureaucracies. nobody has ever gone and said which ones work and which ones not, which one does exactly the same thing versus what somebody else does. we have 82 teacher programs for teacher quality across 10 different agencies, nine of which are not in the department of education. we have 88 economic agencies, economic development agencies spending $6.5 billion a year across four different agencies. we have job training. we have 47 job training programs across nine different agencies, and we're spending $18 billion a year, and the g.a.o. said every one of them overlapse with the exception of three. and yet we haven't had the first move in the senate this year in spite of our -- all our problems economically to streamline,

eliminate duplication, eliminate overlap and put metrics on what we're doing. i would also just list for the record the rest of these. again, i would state if you're against this amendment, you're against eliminating the very cause of our problems in this country, which is duplication, redundancy overlap, and you're against doing the proper oversight so that we make informed decisions, and would that, i'd yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i ask unanimous consent to terminate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: there is a lot going on in this world. we have a mountain of debt and wars and rumors of wars and people are really nervous throughout the country, but i thought i would take a few minutes of the time of the senate to acknowledge something that is a very big deal where i come from. south carolina, the university of south carolina, has won back-to-back college world series. they defeated the florida gators last night 5-2. florida played a great series, and they left a lot of men on base and i'm sure they are going to look at the tape and talk about next year how to get some runs in. but coach tanner and the gamecock team repeated. they are the -- only the sixth team in ncaa history to do this, to win back-to-back titles. it was very rewarding and poetic. south carolina won the last series in rosenblatt stadium,

the first series to be held in the t.d. ameritrade park in omaha in front of 26,000 people. they set a record for the ncaa with 16 consecutive postseason wins, 11 consecutive wins in the college world series dating back to the 2010 season. the pitching staff had a 1.31 e.r.a. the bullpen was 6-0. great hitting, great coaching. more than anything else, big hearts. so to the gamecock nation, congratulations. back-to-back titles. you make us all proud. and if you're watching gamecock baseball and you have got a bad heart, you need to turn the channel because they win in the most dramatic figures. they never give up. they believe in themselves. i think michael roth, the winning pitcher of the last game, said that we don't have the most talented position at every position, but we play

together with heart, we believe in each other, and maybe the country could learn something from gamecock baseball. if we all work together for a common purpose and put our differences aside, maybe we could achieve greatness, too. so congratulations to the coach tanner for back-to-back titles. we're very proud of your team. not only did you win two titles, you did it with style, grace and dignity. you won with honor. i look forward to meeting the team when they come up to the white house, and i know columbia is rocking tonight. so congratulations to the gamecox. you won in fine style, and we're all proud of you. and with that, i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will now vote on the coburn amendment number 521. under the previous order, the two-thirds vote is required for

adoption. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 34. twrds of those voting, not having vote the ar firm:15, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previouthe presiding r the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.

the senate will be in order. the clerk will report the managers s. amendment. the clerk: the senator from new york #-rbgs mr. schumer, proposes amendment 523. the presiding officer: under the previous order, that amendment is agreed to. the question is now on the resolution as amended. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 89, the nays are 8. the resolution as amended is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. a senator: mr. president, i

ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until 8:00 p.m., with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inouye: thank you, sir. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: cer: the

majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 220. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 220, expressing the sense of the senate regarding the june 30, 2011, opening of the tom lantos institute in budapest, hungary. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding with the measure? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that my name be added as a cosponsor of this important legislation. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: tom lantos i served

with in the house of representatives, one of the finest orators i have ever heard. academic, he had a ph.d. in economics. he was a wonderful member of congress. he was a survivor of the holocaust, as was his wife, a courageous man. he was captured by the nazis as a teenager on multiple occasions, escaped, came back. his blond hair kind of gave him away, but he was just a wonderful, wonderful human being, and i still miss him a great deal. i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate, any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record as if read. would the chair grant my unanimous consent request? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the senate proceed to s. res. 221. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 221, congratulating kappa alpha phi incorporated, and so forth

and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection, the senate shall proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that we now proceed to s. res. 22. -- 222. the clerk: senate resolution 222, recognizing the american revolution center for its role in telling the story of the american revolution, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection? seeing and hearing no objection, without objection, the senate shall proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action or debate and any statements relating to this matter be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that at noon, thursday, june 30, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 197, there be two hours of debate, that upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate to calendar number 197,

the motion to reconsider -- that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate. that no further motions be in order to the nomination. any statements related to the nomination be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i may not have the opportunity tomorrow to speak on this nomination of david petraeus. in the last 50 years, he's the most noted soldier we have had in the united states military. this man could retire, go off into the business community and make millions and millions of dollars. this man has a ph.d. from princeton. he is a highly decorated member of the army. just such a fine man. he's walking away from that money because he wants, as he told me, he thinks he owes his

country more public service. this is one of the finest people we have ever had as a public servant in our country. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the fps committee be authorized to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. that is, june 30, and that that they be permitted to meet beyond the two-hour limit set forth in rule 26. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until tomorrow, 9:30 a.m., thursday, june 30. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 12:00 p.m. senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first hour and republicans controlling the second hour. following morning business, the senate proceed to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be at least one roll call vote tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. on the confirmation of general david petraeus to be director of the central intelligence agency. mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i believe that, in fact, is the case, i ask we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate will be adjourned until senate will be adjourned until

democratic senators today criticized the number of u.s. supreme court rulings saying that they favor corporations over consumers employees and investors. that senate judiciary hearing is next on c-span2. ..