senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, with the chairman's permission i'd like to speak on the defense bill. mr. president, i would ask consent that our defense fellow in our office, major john flinn, be granted the floor privileges for the duration of s. 1867, the defense authorization bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to thank chairman carl levin. i want to thank senator mccai

mccain. i want to thank the entire armed services committee and all of the dedicated staff for their efforts in crafting this national defense authorization act. i am going to continue to work with all of my colleagues to resolve some of the very challenging provisions, one of which we just voted on having to do with what courts the detainees are going to be prosecuted in. i'm hopeful that compromises will be reached in the days ahead so that this bill can be passed and signed into law. mr. president, there are five amendments that i and others have offered that i would like to talk about. the first is amendment number

1210. it has been crafted in consultation with the government accountability office and it would require the department of the navy to evaluate the cost and benefits of stationing initial destroyers at naval station mayport in jacksonville, florida. you ask why. well, there are frigates at mayport that will be decommissioned in 2015 but the ships that will replace them will not arrive until 2016, and they are the letoro combat ships. and, therefore, there is a hiatus that a ship repair industry that has built up to take care of the navy's fleet for a year is going to be

without work. and from the standpoint of keeping the maintenance and repair of the navy's fleet, we need to determine if it will be more cost-effective for the navy to mitigate this problem by bringing additional destroyers to mayport during that time frame, extending the service lives of the existing frigates or by boosting the industry by bringing ships from around the country to the jacksonville ship repair industry for repair. if we do nothing, it really isn't an option because the ship repair business would take too big of a hit and in order to provide some oversight of the navy's methodology so that we can get the greatest bang for the buck for keeping the navy

fleet at the level of readiness that it needs in this amendment, i'm asking for the g.a.o. to assess and report independently. and my colleague from florida, senator rubio, has joined as a cosponsor and i urge the support of this amendment, and it should not be a controversial amendment. and i would hope that the committee would be able to accept it. mr. president, i've also proposed amendment number 1236 which requires the department of air force to further explain their plan to change the flag officer positio positions at aie materiel command and reducing oversight and eliminating officers with vital experience could damage the air force's

weapons testing mission, and so this amendment simply requires the air force to submit a report which would be assessed by the g.a.o. again, this should not be a controversial amendment and ought to be accepted by the committee. mr. president, smart schumer of new york and i are working to ensure that the departments of defense and the veterans affairs department continue to study and evaluate the harmful effects of the garbage burn pits at our base in bhalad in iraq. now, this has gotten some attention in the express it is horrible of what we're seeing is that when our troops are exposed to these toxic fumes by these open burn pits, well, we see the

consequences in their health that turns up later and obviously is not only a diminution of the health of our troops, which we ought to first and foremost protect -- but, of course, that's a continuing cost to the u.s. government. because years later, what we're finding is -- and this comes out of the first gulf war experience with those open burn pits, we have determined that serious health problems could be traced back to the breathing in of those toxic substances because the troops were exposed to the fumes coming out of those burn pits. and so what this amendment does -- and it should not be controversial -- requires a study be designed to take a look

at those burn pits and further focus our inquiry on the serious medical effects on our troops. so far the reports have been inconclusive. but troops are still getting sick and it needs to be understood and, thus, the reason for the study. next year we will work to have the actual study funded. but senator schumer and i want to get on with this study and we ask and it should be accepted by the committee that it is a noncontroversial amendment. after all, it's what we all wa want, the protection of our troops. let me talk about amendment 12 1209. this addresses the long-standing problem faced by relatives of

those who have been killed in action or whose death is related to service in the military. and that is the current law of a dollar-for-dollar reduction of department of defense survivor benefit plan annuity offset dollar-for-dollar by the veterans administration's annuity amount coming from the dependency and indemnity compensation which comes from the department of veterans affairs. now, senator inhofe has joined us and he had filed a stand-alone bill, and i joined him on that, s. 260, and it's cosponsored -- get this -- by 49 senators. the senate has supported

eliminating this offset for years and i hope that in the senate on this defense authorization bill, we're going to remain steadfast in support of the military widows and the family members. why? because the survivor benefit plan is an optional program for military retirees offered by the defense department it's like an insurance plan. military retirees pay premiums out of their retirement pay to ensure that their survivors will have adequate support when that retired military person passes away. for many retirees, reasonably priced insurance from the public marketplace is not available due

to their service-related disabilities and their health issues, and, thus, the reason for this insurance plan, the survivors' benefit plan. and s.v.p. is a way for retirees to provide some income insurance for their survivors, and it pays them 55% of their retired pay. that's for the survivors from the retired military person when that person dies. it's an insurance policy. but along comes another law, the dependency and indemnity compensation, d.i.c. it's a completely different survivor benefit and it's administered by the veterans administration. when a service member dies, either due to a service-related disability or illness or

active-duty death, surviving spouses are entitled to a monthly compensation of $1,154 from the veterans administration. but here's the rub. of the 270,000 survivors receiving the s.b.p., the insurance policy, that the retiree, the military retiree has paid for, about 54,000 of them are subject to the offset where they are eligible in the endemocrat knit program under the v.a. -- eligible under the indemnity program under the v.a. according to the defense actuary, 31,000 survivors' s.b.p. plan is completely offset by the v.a.'s dependence say and indemnity compensation.

31,000 people have it offset. they're entitled to both under two different laws but then there's a law that says you have to offset one from the other. and this means that that survivor that's entitled to both doesn't get the $1,154 from the veterans administration that they're entitled to. so military retirees bought in good faith into the insurance plan, the s.b.p. they were planning for their future, for their families. the government now says we're not going to make you eligible for the additional compensation from the veterans administration. and so what it means is we're not taking care of those who are left behind in the same manner as these service members thought

they were going to get when they took care of our country. and i know of no purchased annuity plan that would deny payout based on seat o -- basedn receipt of a different benefit. and i say that having had some experience, mr. president, in insurance in my former life. years and years ago as the elected insurance commissioner of the state of florida. well, i mean, it was said best by president lincoln and he said in his second inaugural address that one of the greatest obligations in war is to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the

battle and for his widow and his orphan. and that's the whole intention of these two laws but we're not doing it. we're not honoring our service members. the government must take care of our veterans, their widows and their orphans. and almost every year in the senate, we have passed this eliminating the offset. and what happens, it goes down to the conference and they eliminate it because it's going to cost money. now, we've had a couple of times important little steps in the right direction with some lessening of the offset. but we must meet our obligations to military families with the same sense of honor their loved one rendered their service to this country. and so we must eliminate this

offset. all right, and finally, mr. president, there is an amendment to sanction the central bank of iran. in just the previous two months, iran has attempted a terrorist attack on u.s. soil while continuing to develop its nuclear capability back home. and it's done so in complete disregard for the nonproliferation treaty. the united states has led the international community in enacting crippling sanctions against the iranian regime. we need to tighten the screws down more

-- and so we must continue these efforts. and by sanctioning the central bank of iran, we will make it clear to iran's religious leaders -- and that's what you really have to say -- that there are real consequences to their support for terrorism and their attempts to develop nuclear weapons. a nuclear iran would be disastrous for the region, it would be disastrous for europe. it clearly would be a threat against israel, one of our strongest allies, and it clearly is a threat to the national security interests of the united states. the cost of inaction is too great and that's why we ought to go after the central bank of

iran by sanctioning them. and, mr. president, i think i have offered a number of amendments along with and on behalf of our colleagues that should be able to be accepted and i would implore the leadership of the committee to please consider these. mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the levin-mccain amendment number 1092, which is the regular order, be modified with the changes that are at the desk, that amendment addresses the issue of counterfeit parts and the department of defense supply chain. further, that the amendment as modified be agreed to, that upon disposition of the levin-mccain amendment, the senate resume consideration of

the paul amendment, number 1064; that there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form on the paul amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate resume consideration of the landrieu amendment, number 1115; that there be up to 30 minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form on the landrieu amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to votes in relation to the two amendments, the paul and l.a.n. draw amendments, in the following order: paul number 1064, the landrieu number 1115, that there be two minutes equally divided prior to each vote, that there be no amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes, and that both amendments be subject to a 60-vote -- 60-affirmative vote threshold. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. levin: now, mr. president, with the acceptance of this unanimous consent agreement, the levin-mccain amendment has now been -- as modified, has now been agreed to; is that correct? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. levin: and so now before us is the paul amendment number 1064, with 30 minutes of debate. i don't see senator -- i'm sorry. i appreciate that. i would also ask unanimous consent that senator baucus be added to -- as a cosponsor to our levin-mccain amendment number 1092. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i also would ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that the legislative fellow in the office of senator baucus, air force major jason wright, be granted floor privileges for the

duration of the debate on this bill. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: and until senator paul gets here to begin debate on his amendment, i just would very, very briefly describe what we have described before, which is the anticounterfeiting amendment that is so important to stop the flow of counterfeit parts into the department of defense supply chain. the amendment is going to do a number of things. it's going to require the department of defense and department of defense suppliers to purchase electronic parts from original equipment manufacturers and their authorized dealers or from trusted suppliers who meet established standards for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts. it establishes requirements for notification, inspection testing, and authentication of electronic parts that are not available from such suppliers. it requires the department of

defense officials and department of defense contractors who become aware of counterfeit parts in the supply chain to provide written notification to the d.o.d. inspector general, the contractor officer, and the government industry data exchange program or similar program designated by the department of defense. it requires enhanced inspection of electronic components imported from countries that have been the source of counterfeit parts in the d.o.d. supply klain, and china being the one that is clearly the worst offender in this regard. it requires large d.o.d. contractors to establish systems for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts in the supply chains, authorizes reduction of contract payments to contractors that fail to develop adequate systems, it requires the department of defense to adopt policies and procedures for detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts, and its own direct purchases and asession and being aing upon imports of counterfeit parts from d.o.d.

officials and contractors t authorizes the suspension and deparliament of contractors 40 repeatedly fail to detect counterfeit parts or fail to exercise due diligence in the detection and avoidance of counterfeit parts. the amendment also includes a bill that senator whitehouse introduced that was passed out of the judiciary committee to toughen criminal sentences for counterfeiting military goods or services and finally, it requires the department of defense to define the term "counterfeit part" which is a critical, long overdue step to getting a handle on this problem. i want to thank senator mccain, who with me held a very significant hearing in the area of crnlg fit parts, demonstrate -- of counterfeit parts, demonstrating that what is going on here is that electronic waste, which is shipped from the united states and the rest of the world mainly to china, is then disassembled by hand, washed in dirty rivers, dried on city sidewalks, sanded down to remove part numbers and

other marks that would indicate its quality or performance. we have millions, literally, that we've identified of used parts that are gotten into the defense supply chain that are not supposed to be used parts, that are supposed to be new parts. it's amazing how far the counterfeiters particularly in china are willing to go. we've asked the u.s. government accountability office, the g.a.o. actually, to use a fake company, to go online and buy electronic parts and the g.a.o. found suppliers not only sold counterfeit parts when the g.a.o. sought legitimate parts, they found suppliers who were willing to sell them parts with nonexistent part numbers. all those sellers were in china. we had example after example of weapons systems that had counterfeit parts in them. they endanger our troops. they endanger our taxpayers. all too often the people who pay for the replacement of

counterfeit parts are the taxpayers instead of the contractors. that is going to end under our bill. and so all of the weapons that we identified -- lasers that were used for targeting hell-fired missiles, desplay units that were used in the air force's aircraft for c-27-j's, 3-130 manufacture j'-j's j's --t parts have gotten into those systems. we're going to put an end to that with this legislation. i want to thank my good friend, senator mccain, for all the work that he and his staff and my staff put in on that hearing in preparing this amendment, which we have now adopted. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i want to thank senator levin and staff for the thorough job of investigation that was undertaken to identify the

counterfeit electronic parts that are penetrating the department of defense supply chain. i'd like to thank senator whitehouse for his provisions, which have been added to the bill, a bill that he had introduced in the judiciary committee. at the hearing that we had on november 8, the committee received additional evidence to supplement an already robust investigative record and some very serious issues were raised, including the threat counterfeit electronic parts pose to the safety of our men and women in uniform, to our national security, and to our economy, how counterfeits increase the short- and long-term costs of defense systems, the lack of transparency in the defense supply chain and the united states' relationship with the people's republic of china. i see the senator from kentucky is on the floor, but i would just like to point out again and

emphasize the points that the chairman has made. the problem with counterfeit electronic parts in the defense supply chain is more serious than most people realize. during its investigation, our committee uncovered over 1,800 incidents, tolling over 1 million parts of counterfeit electronic parts in the defense supply chain. suspect counterfeit electronic parts have been installed or delivered to the military for use on thermal weapon sites, on thaad computers and on military aircraft, including the c-27-j, c-13-j, the poo sidon, and the ch-46. now, mr. president, i don't claim that this legislation will solve the problem of counterfeiting from china, the whole issue of intellectual

property and counterfeiting that goes on in other aspects of the world's economy and ours is one that is a very large issue. but at least this is an effort to make sure, as much as we can, that the men and women who serve in our military are not subject to operating spe operating systd literally endanger their lives much less the incredible increase of the taxpayers' dollars. so, i want to thank the chairman again and his staff, and i can assure my colleagues that this is an issue that we will be following very closely in the days and weeks and months ahead. i note the presence of senator paul and so i ask for the regular order. the presiding officer: there are now 30 minutes of debate equally divided. -- on this amendment. mr. levin: i wonder if the senator from kentucky would just

yield for 30 seconds, just so i can answer a question that has been asked of me. what happened to the approximately 35-40 amendments that we had cleared? why are they not part of this unanimous consent request? the answer is because they're -- there are a few senators apparently who don't object to the substance of the amendments but who have other goals that they're at the moment insisting on. that puts in jeopardy the effort of literally dozens of our colleagues to achieve what are in these cleared amendments and i hope that those two as if in morning business would relent. -- and i woul i would hope thate two senators would relent. mr. paul: i rise to bring the order to eangdz. we should rejoice at the conclusion of the war no matter wha whj you favor the iraq war or not, there is a glimmer of

hope for democracy to now exist in the middle east in iraq. war is a hellish business and never to be desired. as the famous war hero john mccain once said, "war is wretched beyond description and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality." this vote today is more than symbolism. this vote today is about the separation of powers. it's about whether congress should have the power to declare war. congress vested that power -- the constitution vested that power in congress. and it was very important. our founding fathers did not want all of the power to gravitate to the executive. they feared very much a king and so they limited the power of the executive. when franklin walked out of the constitutional convention, a woman asked him, what have you brought us? was it going to be a republic, a democracy, a monarchy?

he said, a republic, if you can keep it. in order to keep a republic, we have to have checks and balances, but we have to obey the rule of law. madison wrote that the constitution supposes what history demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. th -- the constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested the power to declare war in congress. when we authorize the war in iraq, we give the president the power to go to war, and we give the power -- the constitution does -- gives the power to the president to execute the war. all of the infinite decisions that are made in war, most of them are made by the executive branch. but the power to declare war is congress's. this division was given to make a division of power, separation of powers to allow there to be a reluctance to go to war.

we have this vote now to try to reclaim the authority. if we don't reclaim the authority to declare war or to authorize war, it means that our kids or our grandkids or our great grandkids could be sent to war in iraq with no debate, with no vote of congress. we've been at war for nearly ten years in iraq. we're coming home, and we should rejoice at the war's end. but we need to reclaim that authority. if we leave an open-ended authority out there that says to the president or any president -- if not this particular president, it could be any president. if we leave that authority out there, we basically abdicate our duty. we abdicate the role of congress. there was supposed to be checks and balances between congress and the president. so what i'm asking for is that we reclaim, that congress, the senate today reclaim the authority to declare war. and at the same time we celebrate that this is an end to something that no one should

desire. as senator mccain has pointed out, as many have pointed out, dwight eisenhower pointed out the same thing. if you want to know the hellish of war, talk to someone who's been to war. that's why this power is too important to be given to one person and to be left in the hands of one person, a president of either party. so the vote today will be about reclaiming that authority, reclaiming the authority of congress to declare war. so i would recommend that we have a vote and that the vote today be in favor of deauthorizing the war in iraq. it's not just myself who has pointed out this. the first president of the united states wrote that the constitution vests the power of declaring war in congress. therefore, no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure. this has been recognized from presidents from the beginning of the history of our country. the problem is that if we don't go it up, that power is left out there and it is a power lost to

congress. frank chotoroff wrote all wars come to an end at least temporarily. but the authority acquired by the state hangs on. political power never abdicates. this is a time to reclaim that power. it's an important constitutional question. and i hope those senators will consider this seriously and consider a vote to reclaim the authority to declare war. at this point i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time and temporarily yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: mr. president, i would like to, first of all, thank the senator from kentucky for quoting me. that's always a very pleasant experience as long as as it is someone that one would admire. on several occasions i have been quoted in ways that i wish that i had observed what my old friend, congressman morris

udall, used to say is the politicians prayer, that may the words that i utter today be tender and sweet, because tomorrow i may have to eat them. so i want to thank the senator from kentucky for his kind words. i also want to praise the senator from kentucky who is a person who has come here with a firm conviction that he not only has principles, but he intends to act on those principles as impactful way as possible and represent the people of kentucky in a very activist fashion, and he has my admiration. however, i would rise in opposition to the amendment. i'd like to read from a letter that was sent to the chairman and to me from the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and

secretary of defense -- quote -- "this week, as you consider the national defense authorization act, the department of defense would like to respond to your request for views on the amendment offered by senator paul which would repeal the authorization for the use of military force in iraq. u.s. forces are now in the final stages of coming home by the end of 2011. we're moving to a new phase in the relationship between our two countries and equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. while amendment number 1064 echoes the president's policy, we cannot support the amendment as drafted. outright and complete 'repeal' of the aumf-1, which is the authorization for the use of military force in iraq, and aumf-i. which draws all congressional support for any limited wind-up activities

normally associated with ending a war. thank you very much for your continued efforts, et cetera. and the department of defense sent over an unclassified response that is approved by several members of the pentagon, and says "although we are implementing u.s.-iraqi security agreement in full and pulling out all our forces by the end of the year, we still have a limited number of d.o.d. personnel under the chief of mission authority to staff the office of security cooperation iraq. because there may be elements that would choose this time of transition to attempt to do harm to these personnel, it is essential that the department of defense retain the authority and flexibility to respond to such threats. the aumf-i provides these authorities. the administration has worked closely with congress in circumstances where it has been

necessary to rely on the aumf, and it would continue to do so should the need arise." in other words, and unfortunately, iraq remains a dangerous place. and we will have the largest con tingent of americans as we withdraw our combat troops. some 16,000 americans will man our embassy and consolates in iraq. and unfortunately, there are great signs of instability in iraq. al sadr said any remaining american troops will be a target. the iranians continue to encourage attacks on americans. there is significant divisions within the country which are beginning to widen, such as sunni shia, the area around

kirkuk, increasing iranian influence in the country. and i will refrain from addressing my deep concerns that i had before, the agreement to completely withdraw took place. and i will leave that out of this discussion because i feel the decision that was clearly made not to keep a residual force in the country which was made by this administration and was the subject for debate on another day, has placed the remaining americans in significant jeopardy. and as i say, that's 16,000 americans to carry out the postwar commitments that we have made to iraq to help them rebuild their country after many years of war and bloodshed. so i certainly understand the

senator from kentucky's aim here. the president campaigned for president of the united states, committing to withdraw all our troops from iraq. he has now achieving that goal. but i think it would be very serious to revoke all authority that we might have in order to respond to possible unrest and disruption within the country that might require the presence, at least on some level or another, the american troops to safeguard those 16,000 americans that will be remaining in iraq when our troops withdraw. so i argue that the amendment be defeated. and i yield the floor. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i too will oppose the paul

amendment for the repeal of the authorization for the use of military force in iraq, for a number of reasons but i think mainly there are just too many unknown, uncertain consequences of appealing this authority, including the need to protect our troops. and i just am unwilling to take this risk during the critical transition period and not knowing precisely what will happen after that transition either. and, by the way, mr. president, i take this position as somebody who opposed the use of military force in iraq to begin with. back in 2002 october when congress voted on the authorization to use military force in iraq, i did not support it. i thought it was a mistake to do that and offered an alternative resolution that that would haved

the use of force if the united nations security council supported that use of force. so i take a position here opposing the repeal of the authorization, although i oppose the authorization itself in the first instance. it's an unusual position to be in, but i want to explain why it is that i oppose the repeal of this authorization. first, the drawdown appears to be on track, to be completed by december 31. but there always can be unforeseen circumstances that could delay that date. there's no provision in this bill for the possibility of an extension or a modification of that date. i would be reluctant to see it modified or extended, i must say, but i don't want to preclude the possibility by ending something in advance, ending an authorization in advance of the circumstances arising that might require for days, weeks, months the

extension or modification of the current decision to withdraw our forces by december 31. secondly, mr. president, we just simply do not know the consequences of repealing the authorization. and let me just give a few examples. what about ongoing lawsuits in u.s. courts arising from actions by u.s. personnel that were authorized under this authorization for the use of military force? would repeal of the authorization for the use of force have an effect? it's unknown to me. i don't know how many lawsuits there are. but what is the impact on this? that's something which surely we should want to know. by the way, mr. president, we authorized the use of force in the first gulf war. we did not repeal that authorization. technically that authorization

continues. it has done no harm that i can see. third, the paul amendment raises issues for our detention authority in iraq. now this is not an abstract concern. currently the administration is in the process of deciding how to deal with one high-valued detainee in u.s. custody whose name is ali mutsa daqdaq, suspected of organizing a kidnapping in iraq that resulted in the deaths of tpaoeufp u.s. service -- five u.s. service members. he's tied to hezbollah. the united states is relying on the authority of the aumf, authorization of u.s. military force in iraq, to continue to detain daqduq. u.s. officials are still in

discussion with the government of iraq over the ultimate disposition of daqduq, including possibly releasing him to u.s. custody either in iraq or somewhere else. repeal of the aumf could limit the administration's options for dealing with daqduq after january of 2012. would it limit those options? we don't know. should we pass something as dramatic as a repeal of an authorization at this time without knowing what the consequences are in the real world to our interests? i don't think we can take that chance. and so i would oppose the amendment of the senator from kentucky.

mr. graham: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. i would like to rise in support of the statements made by senators mccain and levin. i don't have that good feeling about iraq, quite frankly. i'm not confident at all that the worst is behind us. i'm hopeful that we can withdraw our troops and nothing bad will happen in iraq. but as senator levin just described, the implications of repealing the authorization to use military force are wide, varied and uncertain. and what do you get by tpraoelg this? -- by repealing this 1234* you can go back home and said you did something that -- i don't know what you get. i really don't. i don't know what we gain as a nation by taking the contingencies of using military force off the table as we try to wind down. i just don't see the upside, quite frankly. i know the reality of what our troops face and why the department of defense would want to continue to have this authorization until we get iraq

behind us. at the end of the day, 4,400 people-plus have lost their lives. thousands have been wounded and maimed. not counting the iraqis have losted their lives and been wounded and maimed to try to create order out of chaos. so as we move forward as a body, i just don't see the upside to those who are doing the fighting and who have to deal with the complications of this long, protracted war by us repealing the authorization at a time when it may be necessary to have it in place. and if there is any doubt in your mind about what senator levin and mccain say and the department of defense says about the need for this to continue, i would ask you to give the doubt and the benefit to the department of defense. you don't have to. i just think that is a wise thing to do, because what we

gain by repealing it, i'm not sure what that is in any real sense. by having the authorization in place for a while longer, i do understand how that could potentially help those who are fighting in iraq and the follow-on needs that come as we transition. so i would just ask the body to be cautious, and if you have got any doubt that senator mccain or levin's concerns are real, i would think now would be the time to defer to the department of defense and give them the tools we need to finish out our operations in iraq. and i would close with this one thought. the vacuum created by the fact that we won't have any troops in 2012 can be filled in a very bad way if we don't watch it. the kurd-arab problem could find up in open warfare. the iranian influence is growing in iraq as i speak. and we do have troops and civilian personnel in the country, and we will have a lot

next year. i just think out of an abundance of caution that we ought to leave the tools in place the department of defense says they need to finish this out. so i would urge my colleagues to err on the side of giving the department of defense the authorization they need to protect those who are going to be left behind. thank you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: it disappoints me that president obama opposes a former end to the iraq war, but it doesn't surprise me. as a candidate, president obama was outspoken against the war and for ending the war. he will be bringing the troops home, but this vote and this debate is not about necessarily just bringing the troops home. this is a debate over power. the executive branch wants to keep the unlimited power to commit troops to war. this is about who holds the power. the founding fathers intended that congress should hold the power.

this vote is about whether we will continue to abdicate that power and give that power up to the executive. that allows for no checks and balances. we need to have checks and balances. it's what our founding fathers intended. with regard to defending ourselves, there is authorization for the president to always defend the nation using force. there is authorization for every embassy around the world to defend the embassy, and that's why we have soldiers there. we also have agreements with the host country that the host military is supposed to support the embassy, and if that fails, we have our own soldiers. we have these agreements around the world. there is nothing to say that we can't use force, but what this says is we're reclaiming the power to declare war and we will not have another war with hundreds of thousands of troops without a debate. should not the public debate, should not congress debate before we commit troops to war? this war is coming to a close. i suggest we should be proud of it, and i hope people will support this amendment.

i'd like to yield my remaining time to the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i rise in support of senator paul's amendment to revoke the war authority. we have heard on this floor that the consequences of revoking authority are vague and uncertain. indeed, my team has been seeking a reply from the department of defense for quite some time now as to whether there were any conditions that we should be alerted to where this would create a problem, and here at the last minute, we appear to have a memo, a memo that has not come to my office, that says there are possible complications. well, let's be clear. the executive branch never wants to hand back authority it has been granted. it always wants to retain the

maximum flexibility. with you as my colleague has pointed out, this is an issue of constitutional authority. we had a constitutional discussion about authorizing action in iraq and certainly contrary to my opinion this body supported that action. but now the president is bringing this war to an end. and doesn't it make sense then that we end the authority that went with this war and call a former end to this battle. this issue has been raised, but there might be something that happens in the future. isn't that true for every country on this planet, that something might happen in the future, something might happen in somalia, something might happen in yemen, something might happen in any nation in the world. and indeed, under the war powers act, the president has the

ability to respond immediately. doesn't need to come to this body for 60 days. so there is extensive flexibility that would go with iraq just as it goes with every other country, in addition to the authority that has been granted to pursue al qaeda-associated forces around the world. when, if not now, shall we revoke this authority? do we say that once granted, at any point, at any time in the future the administration can go back to war without the authorization of this body? well, i can tell you that it is time for us to reclaim the authority of congress, and should the circumstances arise that the president feels the need to go to -- back into a war mode versus many of the other uses of force that are already authorized under other provisions, then he would have 60 days and he could come back

to this body and say these are the changed circumstances, and under the constitution, will you grant the power to renew or create a new force of war in that country, and we can hold that debate in a responsible manner. but this open-ended commitment under these circumstances does not make sense. congress has yielded its authority under the constitution far too often to the executive branch. so many times, this body has failed to do its fair share under our constitutional framework. this amendment that is before us today makes sense in the context of withdrawal of troops and provides plenty of flexibility to undertake any security issues that might arise in the future, and for that reason, i urge my colleagues to support the paul amendment. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: who yields time?

mr. paul: could i call for the yeas and nays at this point, or do we have an agreement? i ask for the yeas and nays to be recorded. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. the senator from kentucky has four minutes remaining. mr. paul: i yield back my time. ms. landrieu: mr. president. the presiding officer: the

senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i think under the previous order, we were going to debate both amendments and then have a vote in a few moments, is what i understood. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. miss landrieu: thank you, -- ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. mr. mccain: how long would the senator take? ms. landrieu: ten minutes, five minutes. mr. mccain: perhaps we could have votes shortly thereafter. ms. landrieu: the senators have done such a good job managing this bill, we could vote in maybe a few minutes. that would be terrific. thank you senator mccain and senator levin. i appreciate this opportunity to offer the amendment and to be paired with the amendment that the senator from kentucky and the senator from oregon have offered. i will take five minutes to explain it, because a longer explanation would not be necessary because i think the body is very, very familiar with the reauthorization of the sbir program, and the reason that i believe that the chairman and

the ranking member allowed me to offer this amendment with my colleague, senator snowe, is twofold. one, it does have a bearing on the department of defense in that, mr. president, the department of defense is the largest contributor to the sbir and sttr program, which are the two most important research and development programs for small business that the federal government runs and operates, and senator levin and senator mccain know full well the importance for the department of defense and therefore extrapolate correctly the importance of this program for all of our agencies. we take a small portion of the research and development dollars for all of the federal agencies, and we basically direct it to small business, and there is some good reasons, and i'd like to just put in the record a few. as written by one of the advocates supporting the program, she writes -- and i'm

going to put this into the record -- the sbir and sttr funding award process spawns competition among high-tech businesses. scientists and engineers propose their best technological concepts to solve problems of national interest. the best of the best of these concepts are selected for funding. thus, this funding mechanism assures that thinking minds continuously work on producing the most practical solutions to engineering problems. and whether it's our soldiers in the field, mr. president, or whether it's our scientists at nasa or whether it's our scientists and engineers struggling to understand the oceans or better communication technology, they go to the sbir and sttr program. they look for some of the cutting edge ideas, we invest in them, and then many of those ideas go commercial for the benefit of everyone, taxpayers included. she goes on to write that small

businesses develop niche products that are not mass produced overseas. thus, it helps our employment situation right here at home. the employees of a high-tech company are highly educated professionals belonging to high-income groups who contribute substantially to the tax pool and the economy. and finally, one other reason, she says small businesses, which i agree with, are job creators. we hear that large companies are sitting on trillions of dollars of cash, not yet investing. small businesses often operate on very thin to norofit margins and higher staff on -- and hire staff on borrowed money. this is because growth is the mantra for small business survival. if they don't grow, they don't survive. so this small business research program, mr. president, is so important. the reason i'm here tonight asking my colleagues to vote on this amendment on the defense bill, it is relevant. it's also important, and,

mr. president, we're five years late. this program should have been authorized five years ago. now, i inherited the situation when i became chairman of the small business committee, and as you know i have been working diligently with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move this debate forward, to move to advance the ball. that's what we're going to do tonight. we're going to hopefully pass this with more than the 60 votes necessary. this bill came out of the small business committee on a vote of 17-1. it was just broadly bipartisan in its appeal. it is sponsored by my ranking member, senator snowe, who has been one of the strongest advocates for small business in this senate. not just for this year but for many years. she sponsors this bill along with senators -- with senator shaheen and senator brown are also cosponsors, and senator

kerry of this bill. so with senator mccain's help, senator levin's help and the cosponsors of this amendment, i ask my colleagues to vote favorably for it tonight. again, we are five years overdue. it's an important program to get authorized so the folks operating our programs at all the departments have some confidence that the program is going to go on, that they can even do a better job than they have been doing and we can get these investments out to the small businesses that are game changers, mr. president, game changers in america creating new technologies and most importantly, creating the jobs that america needs right here at home. so i don't see anyone else to speak on the amendment. i think that would probably be all the time that we need. i hope that's a signal that there's no opposition to this amendment and perhaps we could either do voice vote or have a very strong vote for reauthorizing the small business

research program, again that is so meritorious and so necessary for the investment of small business in america today. and i yield the floor and return the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, first first -- while senator landrieu is here, because she, i know, is going to be interested in this and is right on top of this, but i want to assure her that this unanimous consent proposal being made now, it was our intention with the previous order to have the landrieu amendment, 1115 modified, with the changes there at the desk and i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with those changes and that our previous order with respect to the vote in relation to the landrieu amendment be modified as well. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection. mr. levin: ,mr. president, while i have the floor and while senator landrieu is here, let me just add my voice of thanks and gratitude to senator landrieu for the energy she shows as chair of our small business community. i'm honored to be a member of that committee and sit at her side. i know how long and hard she has worked on this sbir program, how many years that we have fought hard for this program with her being our leader. the same thing is true with the technology program, the small business technology transfer program which is part of this amendment. this bill is going to help 30 million small businesses to invest in technology research to help grow their business and spur innovation, create jobs, small business technology firms that received sbir funds have produced 38% of america's

patents, 13 times more than large businesses, and employ 40% of america's scientists and engineers. and the defense department is the bigger user -- the biggest user of these programs. and so this really is very appropriate on this bill. and we're very glad that the determination of senator landrieu and her cosponsors and if i'm not already a cosponsor of the amendment i would ask i be added as a cosponsor, as -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: has made it possible for us to be here tonight and i just want to say that while she was on the floor and express what i think is if not the unanimous, the near unanimous gratitude of this body because i expect this will have an overwhelming vote. and, by the way, mr. president, could -- i would ask unanimous consent also that our presiding officer, senator casey, be added as a cosponsor to our counterfeit parts amendment.

it took us too many weeks to do this but as i see the presiding officer in the chair, i'm making up for lost time and asking unanimous consent that he be added as cosponsor. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. levin: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time?

mr. mccain: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i yield back the balance of my time. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back. under the previous order the question occurs on amendment number -- under the previous order, the question occurs on amendment number 1064 offered by the senator from kentucky, mr. paul. the yeas and nays have been ordered. 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 30, the nays are 67. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.

the majority leader. the senate will be in order. the majority leader. mr. reid:. mr. reid: the vote of this morning, tomorrow we're going to have a vote around 11:00 on cloture on this bill and we'll work with the managers to see how they're going to work through the germane amendments. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided on the landrieu amendment. ms. landrieu: mr. president, could we have order, please? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. please take your conversations from the well. ms. landrieu: mr. president, thank you very much. we only will take a minute. i'd like to yield the majority of my time to the ranking member, who has worked so hard on this bill. i want to thank all the members of the senate for working on the -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend.

the senate will come to order. the senator from louisiana is recognized. ms. landrieu: i'd like to thank the cosponsors and thank all of my colleagues for supporting a very balanced extension of the sbir program. this is five years overdue. and i yield the remainder of my time to the ranking memg from the state -- the ranking member from the state of maine. ms. snowe: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank chairwoman landrieu for her leadership and i commend her for that and for all those who are supporting -- the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. snowe: and for all the members of the senate for supporting these two vital programs. we had much debate on these programs back in march for five weeks. there's been broad bipartisan support. they are vital job creators and innovators. they have provided more than 25% of the innovegeses that have occurred over this last decade and certainly vital to the

defense department where we're set aside existing federal research dollars for small business firms. and for our nation's largest sbir arks the department of defense, it provides night vision going to l simple laters to sensors and to other -- around the field. thank you. mr. reid: with bipartisan support, why do we need a roll call vote? do we have to have a roll call vote? the presiding officer: the unanimous consent agreement requires 60 votes. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that order be vitiated. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the amendment. all this favor say aye. a all opposed, say "no." the ayes al appear to have it.

the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. the amendment, as modified, is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nother. the senate will come to order. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: i voted "no" on roll equal vote 210. i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr mr. reed: mr. president, if it is in order i would like to speak on the bill. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. the senate will come to order. mr. reed: i would ask unanimous consent to dispense with the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations from the well.

the senator from rhode island is recognized. mr. reed: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, last evening we passed the leahy-graham amendment which would, by law, make the head of the national guard bureau a member of the joint chiefs of staff. as we go forward in our deliberations, we expect this bill, particularly the conference committee, i think -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations from the well. the senator from rhode island is once again recognized. mr. reed: mr. president, i thank you and thank the senator from delaware. i have, as i indicated, would like to make some comments about how i think we can improve and clarify the legislation that was

adopted last evening by voice vote, but first let me begin by recognizing, obviously, the extraordinary contribution of the men and women of our national guard. i speak from the experience of just a few weeks ago visiting members of the 43rd military police brigade who have the responsibility for detention facility in bag rum, afghanistan. under the able leadership they are doing an extraordinary job. i also was able to talk to some of the members of our air national guard, the 143rd wing. this is the finest c-130-j wing in the united states air force, national guard, active or reserve in my estimate. they are doing remarkable work. in fact, we could not continue the operations in iraq, afghanistan, our homeland security obligations without the men and women of the national

guard. i want to also just say coincidentally i had the great opportunity to sit down with my add ju tant general, general mcbride. he and his staff are extraordinarily effective professionals. i first got the chance to see him in literally action when he commanded the 43rd military police brigade in iraq where they also had detention responsibilities. so we are talking about now a component of our military forces --. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. we're talking about a component of our military forces that are professionals, superbly qualified, complete patriots, dedicated to the success of the mission and the success of this nation. there is a saying one army as there is one air force, and it truly is. i can recall serving on active duty when there was a least wire

perception of the disparity between national guard and active forces. that perception no longer exists. the reality is these are superb professionals doing their job. and so i think that is the starting point to consider this legislation. what i would like to suggest in terms of improvements to the legislation is clearly clarifying the role and responsibility of the chief of the national guard bureau as a member of the joint chiefs of staff. if he has statutory responsibilities, those responsibilities should be -- should be specified. as general mckinley, who is the current chief of the national guard bureau, and a superb professional, pointed out at the committee hearing, the chief of the national guard bureau still does not have a position from which he han advise the president, the

n.s.c., the homeland security council, and congress on nonfederallized national guard forces that are critical to homeland defense and civil support missions. if this is the purpose of appointing, confirming the chief of the national guard bureau as a member of the joint chiefs of staff, that purpose should be laid out. if that is the role he or she is expected to play, to provide advice to the chairman and advice to the president on the nonfederallized national guard forces critical to homeland defense missions it should be spelled out. i hope it is spelled out as we go forward with the process of legislation and the conference. he went on to say that adding the chief of the national guard bureau to the j.c.s. in my opinion, general mckinley, would ensure in the post-9/11 security environment, the national guard's civil support

missions will be represented in all j.c.s. deliberations. i think this is very important and let me suggest why. because one of the essentials of any military organization is unity of command. the national guard bureau has two separate services which it represents. army national guard, air national guard. we do not want particularly at the level of the joint chiefs of staff, to confuse who speaks for the services. who speaks for the army, who speaks for the air force. and i think in order to do this, to preserve the unity of command, to make it very clear that at the deliberations of the joint chiefs of staff the chief of staff of the air force speaks for the air force, the chief of staff speaks for the army -- of the army speaks for the army, we have to make it clear what the chair of the national guard bureau, the chief of the national guard bureau, really, is speaking to. and i would hope as we go forward we could make it very

clear as general mckinley made it very clear in his testimony that his perspective, his point of view, his position on the joint chiefs is related as he said repeatedly to those nonfederallized state functions of the national guard particularly with respect to homeland security and civil support missions. i think this would enhance and clarify the role of the chief of the national guard bureau, and i think also, too, it would avoid even the appearance of a lack of unity of command within the service. i think these are important points. i think these points can be and should be approached in the conference. and i would hope at the end of the day when the president is prepared to sign this bill, that -- and there may be other improvements to this legislation, that this particular aspect of the legislation is incorrespond. and -- incorporate operated.

with that, mr. president, i would yield to the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: mr. president, i ask permission to speak for 20 minutes in morning business. it will probably be less than that. mr. levin: reserving the right to object and i won't, i wonder if i could ask, number one, i have two unanimous consent requests which will take just a couple moments. mr. grassley: yes, go ahead. mr. levin: first i would call for the regular order with respect to amendment number 1174. the presiding officer: the amendment is now pending. mr. levin: secondly, mr. president, there are two colloquies between myself and senator sherrod brown that i would like to be made part of the record. i ask unanimous consent be made part of the record at the end of these colloquies in both cases

senator brown was the amendment referred to -- the amendments referred to in the colloquies, amendments 1260 and 1262. so i would ask unanimous consent that these colloquies be made part of the record and that those two amendments that he then was at the end of the colloquy be withdrawn. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. levin: i thank my friend from iowa. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: when congress passed the health care reform law, it imposed a mandate on individuals who lacked health insurance to purchase it. since then, a number of courts have held that the individual mandate exceeds the power of congress to regulate interstate commerce. the supreme court will soon hear a case on this very question. the supreme court, which usually gives a case one hour of oral argument, is giving the

various issues in this case five and one half hours. this is a modern record. the supreme court should exercise its power of judicial review carefully. one of its major principles of judicial restraint is that an act of congress is presumed to be constitutional. but this is a presumption that can be rebutted. it derives from the respect that one branch of government gives to reviewing the actions of other branches. if congress has made a determination that a statute is constitutional, the supreme court should give that finding some level of deference. but the presumption rests on the promise -- on the premise that congress has made a considered judgment on the constitutionality of laws that it passes. but in the case of the health

care reform bill, this did not happen. republicans raised a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate that was brushed aside by democrats, who favored the bill as a policy matter, and were not going to let a serious constitutional issue get in the way of passing that law. in fact, we know that there is no congressional consideration of the constitutionality of this unprecedented restriction of the freedom of american citizens that's involved with congress mandating the purchase of health insurance. i mean unprecedented in a literal way. congress has never before discovered or exercised this power in modern 200 -- in more than 200 years of the country's history. and since congress has never

before imposed a requirement to purchase a product, no supreme court precedent has ever found that congress may do so. instead, apart from the regulation of items such as navigable waterways or communication lines, the supreme court has always discussed the subject that congress may regulate under the commerce claws as -- clause as activities. in other words, doing something, not enactivity. so let me emphasize the courts have never held that congress can use its commerce power to regulate inactivity or require people to engage in commerce. the court has found that congress cannot regulate interstate economic activity that in combination do not affect commerce, and congress cannot regulate noneconomic

activities such as carrying a gun in a school zone. so it should be clear that congress cannot regulate inactivity such as a thought or a decision not to purchase health insurance. congress has great power under the commerce clause to reduce individual freedom and that great power under the commerce clause goes back to 1942 under the wick earth versus filburn case in which a farmer could be penalized for exceeding a quota on the amount of wheat he could produce even when the excess went for providing food for his own farm and his own livestock. and that the commerce clause decision has allowed congress to pass many significant regulate

laws pursuant to wicker such as environmental laws, drug laws, public accommodation provisions of civil rights laws. but in every such case the regulated person retained freedom to avoid being regulated if he wanted to exercise that freedom. a person, for instance, a person who did not want to comply with environmental laws could simply stop engaging in the activity that fell under the environmental laws. or another example, a person who did not want to be subject to drawing laws could -- drug laws could avoid transporting drugs. and a person who did not want to adhere to public accommodation requirements of law under the commerce clause could leave the public accommodation business. now, the individual mandate is entirely different.

the mandate requires people to take action, and there is no escape from this requirement. a person cannot opt out of the activity that triggers the regulation because the mandate applies even to inactivity. if the person is alive, then he or she has to buy health insurance. that is a serious and novel threat to individual freedom. congress has offered incentives to change people's behavior when it comes to health care reform or maybe some other things, but it is hard to see why congress would do that if it had the power it now claims to force people to buy a particular goods or services. under this logic, congress could require people to buy new g.m. cars so it would not have

enacted -- would not have had to enact cash for clunkers as we did here two or three years ago. similarly, this supposed to power -- supposed power would allow congress to order people to pay money to third parties rather than raising taxes, or it could reach a decision upholding the mandate would permit congress to keep beef prices high by requiring vegetarians to buy beef. members of congress could use this supposed commerce clause power entrenching themselves into office by requiring people to buy houses or cars or other products in areas where their political party has its base of support. despite the arguments of the obama administration, the power it claims that congress can use to compel people to buy goods and services is -- is not unique to health care.

the judges who -- the judges who are honest recognize that if congress can force people to buy insurance, congress can force the purchase of any product or service. it can regulate inactivity because that inactivity can affect interstate commerce. this conclusion is consistent with the opinion of the congressional budget office, because there was a 1994 memo in which c.b.o. wrote that -- quote -- "a mandate issuing government could lead in the extreme to a command economy in which the president and the congress dictated how much each individual and families spent on all goods and services" -- end

of quote. in june of this year the supreme court unanimously decided in the bond case that an individual not only a state, could challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute as exceeding the power of congress to enact under the tenth amendment. this court wrote -- quote -- "by beginning he denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. when government acts in excess of its lawful power, that liberty is at stake." that's a quote from the bond case, unanimously decided in june this year by the supreme court. the court now -- or the case now before the supreme court raises

first principles about our republic. the people are the sovereign in our country. the government serves the peop people, not the other way arou around. that is enforced through a constitution that gives congress just limited power. in "the federalist papers," james madison wrote that the powers of the federal government are few and defines and the powers of the state are many and undefined. and although there is much more interstate commerce in today's economy than there was in 1787, the power is still limited, the constitution has not been changed to that extent. now, if congress can require americans to buy goods and services that congress chooses americans buy without a limiting principle, then there is no

limited federal government. there would be no issue that congress could not address at the federal level. government would not be limited, it would be omnipotent. there would be no range of state powers that the federal government could not usurp. the 10th amendment then would become a dead-letter, as there would be no powers reserved to the states. congress has ceded its enumerated powers in passing -- exceeded its enumerated powers in passing the amendment, in an attempt to create an all-powerful federal government that posed a threat to liberty that the supreme court unanimously warned against in the bond case decided unanimously june of this year. all the supreme court need do to strike down the mandate is to adhere to its position in bond. if it departs from that view and up holds the mandate -- and

uphole the mandate, then our -- and upholds the mandate, then our hope for liberty may rest in a precedent of a case pending in the d.c. circuit case. judge kavanaugh wrote that a president is not required to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals that the president believes is unconstitutional. this is true even when a court has held a statute to be constitutional. so, mr. president, the upcoming supreme court decision on constitutionality of the individual mandate is important not only for the fate of that provision but for its effects on the powers of the federal government and, of course, on the very survival of individual economic liberty. 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:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: i thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes, mr. president. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. our economy is, as the presiding officer and others know, demands two priorities from congress right now:

to reduce spending and to foster job creation. equally importantly, you can't really do one without the other. you can't only cut our way -- you can only cut our way to prosperity. they cannot be mutually specific goals. we can make sensible reforms to reduce our deficit while promoting job creation. that's what -- here's what we should be talking about. first, closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas and encourage american job creation. that saves $19 billion over ten years. it will mean companies choosing to manufacture in the u.s. instead of china and mexico in many cases. my state, ohio, is the third-leading manufacturing state in the country. we produce more than any other state, except for california, three times our population, than text, twice the population. second, let's give faster access to generic drugs that dreet breast cancer and rheumatoid

arnlarthritis. it saves for taxpayers, it saves for insurance companies and insurance rates will go up ad at a much lower rate. it saves for individuals reaching into their pocket and paying co-pays. third, let's strengthen and streamline the farm safety net. that save $20 billion over ten years. there's simply no reason that large farmers who are -- who have profitable years need to get direct payments, need to get farm subsidies. establishing a safety net makes sense. prices are particularly low for a couple of years, if yields are particularly low for a couple years, farmers need that safety net because we don't to lose more family farms. but don't continue to give farm subsidies to farmers that simply don't need them. fourth, let's ask the wealthiest americans to go back to the same tax rate they paid during the clinton years. that will raise $800 billion over the next ten years. during the clinton years, 21

million private-sector jobs net increase occurred during those eight years, even with a higher tax rate on high-income people, as we balance the budget. during the eight bush years, two major tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, that the presiding officer and i and others opposed. under the belief that trickle-down economics would work, only 1 million private-sector net increase in jobs in those eight years and we started with a balance of -- a huge budget surplus, ended with a huge budget deficit. we in that kind of economics doesn't work. those are ways -- those four ways are just four of the many ways i can talk about another time of reducing our deficit and making our economy stronger. too many in washington, though, seek to undermine one of the programs that kept our country strong and good economic times and in bad economic times -- that's sfnlgt i'm now a grand feancht i turned 59 a couple weeks ago. our first grandson -- our only, but our first grandson is three

years old. i understand -- it becomes more personal. i understand how grandparents now get to spend more time with their grandchildren. margaret mead once said, which is come to is passed from grandparent to grandchild. the presiding officer officer who has enough gray hair would understand that and understands that because medicare and social security have helped americans lifelonger and healthier lives -- that's why it's personal to me -- it does give us more time with our grandkids and passing on that knowledge and wisdom to only grandparents can give to to their grandchildren. yet too many seniors have worked hard, played by the rules and require social security to simply live. more than half of ohio's seniors get more than half their income and their retirement -- in their retirement years from social security. that's how important it is. some seniors get almost all their income from social security. that may be as little as $1 00 or $1,100 a month. that's what they live on. yet as more and more seniors

rely on social security, they went two years without a cost-of-living adjustment. because the cost-of-living adjustment under federal law -- this isn't the fault of the president -- although it may have been several presidents ago -- but the law simply says the social security cost-of-living adjustment -- the so-called consumer price index, is tagged for a typical -- is determined for a typical 40-year-old in the workplace, not a 70-year-old who's in retirement. the 40-year-old in the workplace has a slig lowe significantly lh care costs, perhaps has lower transportation costs getting to work while the senior has significant higher health costs and significantly higher heating costs just to keep warm in the winter or cool in the summer, because of their lifestyle. so this consumer price index, which is the determination for

whether or not you get a cost-of-living adjustment is based on a working 40-year-old, into the retired 70-year-old. that's what we want to fix. that's why i've introduced my legislation to do c.p.i. instead of c.p.i.-w, consumer price index working person the way it is now to change it to cpi-e, consumer price index elderly person. base it on those that get the colas. so the american -- america's seniors didn't get a cola the last two years because it didn't reflect their costs as much as it reflected not very high inflation among 40-year-old working families. now, bell, a senior community activist from shaker heights, shared a story with me, how difficult it is to meet their needs when social security benefits don't. half of her income goes towards health care costs not covered by medicare, hearing aids, glasses,

dental care in addition to supplemental health care costs she pays. she like millions of americans worked hard and contributed to social security. they don't see it as the word we use around here, an entitlement. they see it as an investment that they made because everybody -- every working person in denver, colorado springs, you a rohr a, in cleveland, columbus, dayton paid into social security in medicare every day of their work lives. they've invested, they've earned it. they were promised it. but presently, as i, colas are based on the consumer price din deindex for workers instead of r the elderly. those 65 and older tend to spend twice as much on health care as the general population, twice as much out of a smaller income and half of much out of a bigger income than a 40-year-old would get. so, mr. president, the -- that's where we need to go with the social security cost-of-living

adjustment. but in the so-called supercommittee, which wasn't able to come to an agreement, they -- they included -- they were -- there were many in the supercommittee, particularly republicans, particularly sort of ultra conservative politicians that don't much like social security to begin with, they wanted what's called the chained c.p.i. the chained c.p.i. was -- they called it a technical fix. but it is really a regressive tax increase that will cut senior citizens' cost-of-living adjustment. they did it -- they did the chained c.p.i. because it would save social security money. well, to save social security money, what does that mean? it means you're taking money from benefits, especially for low- and middle-income seniors, which is most of them. and those are people who rely on social security for most of their income. the c.p.i. -- their chained c.p.i. would mean the annual benefits for a typical 65-year-old will be $136 less, over time a typical 75-year-old

would receive $560 less a year. an $85, they would receive $1,000 less a year. and at 95, as more seniors live to that age, when they reef really need their benefits, the cut is $1,400 a year. that may not be much money for my colleagues, but it's a lot of money if you're a senior living on a fixed income. so, mr. president, with social security -- with -- we know how to balance this budget. we did it when the presiding officer and i in the house of representatives. we did it with a democratic president and a congress that at least would go along with him and didn't draw these lines in the sand and make -- sign pledges to lobbyists. they're signing pledges to lobbyists saying i won't do this i won't do that instead of thinking for themselves and signing a pledge only to the constitution of the united states of america. we knew how to get it a balanced budget. we can do this. we did this in the 1990's. we got a balanced budget without reducing the cost of living

adjustment, without turning medicare over to the insurance dry -- or to the insurance industry. you know, to me, there are some radical members of the house of representatives, there are some in the senate who would like to see social security turned over to wall street, let them run it, medicare over to the insurance companies, let them run it. imagine, mr. president, if we had when president bush wanted to privatize social security in 1995, the presiding officer was in the house of representatives then, imagine if we had gone along with president bush's idea to privatize social security. imagine would have happened when we know what happened to people's 401(k)'s, imagine what would have happened to the monthly social security payment. as much as people criticize government, government has never failed once to to pay a social security check on time, never failed to pay it at all. since 1937 when social security paid out its first i believe lump sum i believe death benefit in 1940 when social security started paying monthly

benefits, never failed to pay, never paid late. so we know how social security works. if we had turned it over to wall street, who knows what would have happened? if we turned medicare over to insurance companies as the ryan proposal in the house of representatives want to do and as 40 of my colleagues want to do, if we would turn over medicare to private insurance companies, who knows what would happen? but we know it wouldn't be medicare the way we -- the way we're used to. it wouldn't be social security the way we're used to. we know it wouldn't be a medicare that serves the american public. we know it wouldn't be a social security that serves the american public. those two programs if lifted, what, 75 years ago was the poorest, lowest income, most indigent part of our population, seniors, and turned them in -- and reduced the poverty race dramatically, so that seniors are no longer the poorest demographic of our population. regrettabliably, children are and we need to do way better than we've done there. but, mr. president, it clear some of these rath radical

proposals to privatize medicare and turn it over to the insurance companies, to privatize medicare and turn it over to wheat, to chain c.p.i. which will reduce the cost of living adjustment because some egghead in some think tank in washington, some think tank funded probably by wall street and insurance companies think this is a great way to extract a few more dollars from seniors and do whatever they do with more dollars in the treasury. so, mr. president, it's pretty clear what we need to do to get to a balanced budget. it's pretty clear what we should not do, and my colleagues, we all can work together and get -- get to that point. mr. president, i 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 ohio is recognized. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. rest 337 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: designating december december 7, as wreaths across america today. mr. brown: i ask unanimous 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. brown: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 339 and s. res. 338 en bloc which were submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 339, to authorize the production of records by the committee on commerce, science and transportation, senate resolution 338, to authorize the production of records by the committee on commerce, science, and transportation. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate proceeds to the measures en bloc. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to ebb peb, the preambles be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements related to the resolutions be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: finally, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business the senate adjourn until

10:00 a.m. tomorrow, wednesday, november 30, 2011, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour deemed expired and the time for the two leaders reserved for use later in the day. and the senate be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein with -- with senate permitted to speak ten minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees, following morning business the senate resume consideration of s. 1867 the department of defense authorization act, with the time until 10:00 a.m. equally divided and controlled by senator levin and senator mccain or their designees. further upon the use or yielding back of time the mandatory quorum rule under rule 22 be waived, the senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture, and finally that the second-degree filing deadlines for amendments to s. 1867 be 10:30 a.m. on wednesday. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. brown: there will be a cloture vote at 10:00 a.m. -- 1:00 a.m. tomorrow. if there is no further business, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

says lord defense spending should not have been an option during recent budget negotiations. the pennsylvania republican told a heritage foundation audience in washington today that any new negotiations must include fewer corporate and estate taxes. the 12 member committee fought to reach an agreement before the november 23rd deadline. his remarks are 20 minutes. >> on behalf of all of my colleagues and board of trustees and staff of the foundation it is our very great pleasure to welcome you here today to the lemon auditorium. it's a particular pleasure today for me to welcome back to the heritage foundation a dear friend, a collaborator in many important efforts over the years both in his former surface in the u.s. house of representatives, and his merry it rolls in the private sector come as the leader of the club for growth as a private business

leaders like in pennsylvania and now of course is the distinguished junior senator from pennsylvania, where i must say, too, you have some very enthusiastic constituents in terms of my son, daughter-in-law and granddaughters. pat, we are delighted always to welcome you back to the heritage foundation. your role is a principled conservative leader in the u.s. senate is known to everyone. your role on the super committee has been a critical one. we look forward to your comments today. thank you for being with us. [applause] >> thank you thank you so much. it's great to be back. and as you know why continue to be a great fan of heritage. you guys really do continue to play an indispensable role in helping to build the intellectual infrastructure for the conservative movement coming up with that kind of policies that we need for a country, so i'm grateful to you for that

work that you do. the topic of the day i guess is to reflect a little bit on the super committee experience and i look forward to your questions but i want to start off with a little bit of context, and i will share with you what i said to my staff when it's all finished and it was finally over after several very intense months i said to everybody on my staff if anybody ever comes up like this again i want you to know you can immediately sign me up and then be fired. [laughter] that's not what i said it was a tough experience. i think it's worth reflecting for a minute though on how we got here. let's remember this didn't happen overnight. what happened that brought about the massive budget deficits and the amount of debt that caused the committee to come into being was of course fundamentally a

spending spree. that is what really has driven this. remember it's been the sequence of stimulus bills and the bailout and a government takeover. a huge surge in discretionary spending and i think of it sometimes as the political resurrection of john maynard keynes. the man is dead. can't he just rest in peace? in his name and invoking his memory, this government has gone on as an unprecedented spending spree and the misguided notion that somehow weakened artery and spend our way back to prosperity one of the measures is telling the total spending by the percentage of the economy was about 19.7% by 2009 it was

24.7%. 25% increase in the size of the federal government as a percentage of our economy and a mere two years. i think that says it all. but let me say one more thing, and that is that what we have, what we are facing is not fundamentally tax problem as recently as 2007. the very tax rate generated revenue that was about the historical average in the recent decades by 18.5% of gdp and with revenue at 18.5% of gdp in 2007 we had a deficit that was almost trivial in size it was 1.2% of gdp, the size that seems quaint by contemporary standards, right? eminently manageable number and this is not ancient history and it is what the current tax rates. another illustration of the fact that the taxes are not the problem that got us here is that consider this.

if you could double all of the individual tax revenue that was collected last year, not that you could without cratering the economy but imagine that you could if you did that you still would have run a 400 billion-dollar deficit last year. in fact ceo rim through the exercise of calculating where tax rates would have to be if we were to solve the entire long-term deficit and debt problem through taxes alone and you know what they came up with? they said that the top individual and corporate tax rates would be 88% and all the other rates would have to increase in proportion. clearly no economy could possibly sustain this kind of rates. so it's actually impossible to solve this problem on the tax side alone. so now we find ourselves having gone through this spending spree find ourselves with a weak economy still. it has not had the intended

effect. unemployment is still persistently way too high but of course we have now a huge debt about 70% of gdp now and growing rapidly. but if you want to consider how unsustainable, how utterly unsustainable the situation is, i think here is a statistic that speaks volumes. if you look at just social security and the mandatory health care programs and interest on the debt, just those three things come of those three things alone by 2021 inside the current budget window the projected to consume 90% of all the expected tax revenue. just those three things leaving absolutely nothing for the other mandatory spending programs, the welfare programs, nothing whatsoever for the discretionary defense spending. none of that is included in those things yet they would consume 90% of what we could

reasonably expect to collect in revenue. so, it is abundantly obvious to me and probably all of you that we are on a completely unsustainable path. and so at the super committee, the republicans i have to say i'm very pleased at the extent to which we were relatively united, not completely unanimous. certainly there were disagreements, but mostly it was an emphasis and priority of what we did want to do is fix the problem, and what was the problem? president obama was helpful in defining the problem quite correctly and i will quote he said the major drivers our long-term liability, everybody here knows it is medicare and medicaid and our health care spending, nothing comes close. that's from president obama in january 2010. he's absolutely right and so what we set out to do is redesign but i think are fundamentally flawed

architectures which are the reason they are on sustainable and redesigned in any way that would make them work and sustainable, allowing us to get back on a sustainable fiscal path. the budget, a way to go forward the democrats would like that. we weren't shocked when they didn't but we were open to any number of other ways to try to change this to change the architecture of the programs. feeling the change in the architecture we suggested can we at least make some meaningful reforms in things like eligibility and means testing so that we could make meaningful courage to the long term growth trajectory of these programs. that is what we set out to accomplish. the democrats had a different idea. they wanted a trillion dollar tax increase. they wanted at the beginning and in the middle and they wanted that at the end, sometimes a little more than a trillion, but the gist of it was a massive tax

increase with no changes whatsoever to the fundamental design of the programs that are driving the problem. i've maintained from the beginning it is a trillion dollar tax increase is a complete on startup. it doesn't solve the problem. it's the wrong way to go. but we were at this and past and at that and pass a period of months and i was wrestling with this question of is there a way that we could put some kind of revenue on the table since the democrats are so insistent on this that might be able to allow us to break this. is there a way we could do with that would be consistent with principles, consistent with a very important priority of having pro-growth economic policy, and there were two facts that i thought we ought to chicken sandwich of in a way. one is the fact we are currently facing the biggest tax increase in american history. with about 13 months away from

massive tax increases across the board, and as much as i hope we will be able to pretend that it isn't obvious to me that we will have the political ability to prevent those from occurring. so that israel the number one we are facing a grave threat to our economy, and taxpayers. second, we continue to be hobbled by what we know is an absurdly ridiculous tax code, one that is terribly unfair and complicated, difficult to comply with and misallocates resources. so it struck me that maybe it would be worth something if we could avoid the biggest tax increase in american history and at the same time to read in a way the would generate pro-growth tax reform and that's how i developed this framework that we propose to our democratic colleagues. it had a tax and spending component. on the tax side the idea was how

could we maximize economic growth? and since i believe very strongly that capital formation is one of the biggest rivers of economic growth let's mature we preserve the things that allow for the capitol formation, so let's insist as one of the features of this proposal that the capitol gains dividend rates and the estate tax rates that are enforced to become permanent. second we have a revenue neutral refundable to lower it to 25% and broaden the base on which the taxes or implied and the territorial system so that we could encourage among other things the huge repatriation of hundreds of billions of dollars that overseas. there's been significant bipartisan acknowledgment we need to do this kind of corporate tax reform. to his credit it was a very passionate advocate for this and many of us on the committee spent a great deal of time working on the specifics of what this would look like.

i thought this was something we could and should do in this committee to read from the individual income tax side, i suggest we lower marginal rates, shoot for 20% reduction across-the-board and all marginal income-tax rates and than offset the lost revenue by limiting the value of the deductions, and i think we could and should be flexible about the exact mechanics by which we achieve that. i personally think the mechanism that mardy developed where you limit the value of the deduction to the percentage of adjusted gross income is a very appealing way that there are other ways. but in any case, our proposal was that we do it in a way that does not make the tax code less progressive than it is today that we maintained a professor at the 50 to the capricious of the with one exception and that is that we would further restrict the value of the deduction for the top two brackets such that we would generate a net $250 billion over ten years for deficit reduction.

in addition to the two entered $50 billion so generated we propose we have another $250 billion of revenue that would come from relatively noncontroversial sources user fees, asset sales the feedback that comes from higher compliance with the tax code for instance the total revenue peace in our proposal was $500 billion. we then complemented that with a suggestion that we have $750 billion in spending reduction and we had long since given up on the idea we were going to block grant medicaid to the states for instance or the we were going to adopt a premium support model for medicare as much as i think those policies are what we need to do. at this point we were looking for what's possible in the final couple of weeks before the clock ran out on the super committee, and so we suggested that these spending reductions be comprised of items that had already been funded by both sides and it had been tentatively to some degree

deemed acceptable to both sides at least in the context of a broad agreement. a combination is $1.25 trillion. when you and in the savings the results from lower interest payments on the borrowing you end up with just over $1.5 trillion. so what we offered, i think there's a very reasonable offer we offer to generate revenue as the democrats insisted they wanted. they suggested we do the very mechanism that of a bipartisan group that has looked at this suggested which is tax reform that broadens the base and lowers the race and make the tax cut even more progressive which is something the other side insisted that they have. we offered a combination of which the spending reduction to the revenue ratio was more favorable to the democrats than any of the bipartisan commission's had suggested. a plan that would have allowed us to modestly exceed the goal

that was created for the committee in the legislation. nevertheless, the democrats said know. they need a trillion dollar tax increase. that's what they were interested in. and we were not interested in doing that kind of damage to our economy. so in the and why did it fail? i think there were a number of reasons, and over time, additional reasons may occur to me, that at the moment, a few of the reasons -- one of the fundamental reasons i think is there is an asymmetry of the senses. i can tell you the republicans had a very powerful incentive to reach the agreement. six of us wanted to very, very badly and it grows from just the sense that we have of the urgency of the crisis. i really don't think we have a great deal of time to hold the markets are going to continue to lend money to a government that is pursuing an unsustainable fiscal policy. i can tell you a republican

conference meeting of the prison is now for almost a year at virtually every single time we meet this comes up. how are we going to change the fiscal path we are on. there's a very strong sense of urgency on the part of republican members of this committee and beyond. there's also, let's face it, a very, very serious concern that the alternative to the super committee success of the sequestration of the funds hits the defense budget we to hard, and there are a lot of republicans very concerned about that and that created another incentive for us to try to find an agreement giving it on the other side, i think there were forces pulling the democrats away from an agreement. let's face it we have a presidential campaign that is premised on the idea that the president is running against the do nothing congress. never mind half is controlled by democrats. that is the fundamental message of his campaign and if the select committee had come to a

great bipartisan agreement that could pass both houses and signed into law, it would rather model the message the president is trying to run on. in addition, let's face it many of the democrats have long hoped to dramatically cut the defense budget. well that is what happens in the sequestration so there was certainly a segment of that that finds the alternative to success perfectly acceptable, and finally, there is also fighting we have seen the mood in the country that on the part of the far left anyway productive people need to be punished for the tax increase so the voices present in the democratic caucus as well. i do want to stress there were some democrats on the kennedy white think definitely wanted to accomplish something. i just think they found it impossible to break from the left wing of their own caucus. going forward i think it is clear what we need to do, we need to focus on maximizing

economic growth. we need to focus on transforming the drivers of the deficits into the sustainable fashion. and i guess i'm going to have to vote soon. >> four minutes. >> a lot of time for questions here i think. but let me just say the big questions about the size of the government and the role of government and the questions that divide us at some level would await another kennedy and guidance from the voters. but in the meantime there are things we need to do. i think number one we absolutely need to stick to the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts than scheduled. i think it's important that the the reconfigured so they don't land disproportionately on the defense budget as they are currently scheduled but we need to make sure that they happen to be the second thing is we ought to accept maybe we can't persuade democratic friends to reform the tax code lets do the

pieces we can do. let's try to move to the territorial system and close the of egregious loopholes like the ethanol future the we voted successfully on in the senate. on the spending side likewise let's if we couldn't agree to a big grand bargain for which they're ought to be broad bipartisan consensus reducing the corporate welfare for instance agricultural subsidies even asking federal employees to retirement benefits. these are things both sides ought to be yet to agree on. i would say there's a silver lining to the committee perhaps we discover or for some of us rediscovered there are a great deal of places to commit substantial savings for taxpayers by all means let's do what we can. so thank you for a much. [applause]

>> we are governed by someone else speak of schedule. thank you for being with us. we welcome you back to continue the dialogue in the very near future to be the ladies and gentlemen, we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

..

>> it would be ridiculous. no, i will not in any way be a lobbyist, i do not intend to practice law, although i might show up pro bono for a gay rights case. my intention would be to do some combination of teaching and lecturing. >> after 16 terms in the house of representatives, massachusetts congressman barney frank will step down at the end of next year. watch his retirement announcement as well as more than 1,000 other appearances on the c-span networks online at e