Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I agree totally with my friend. Let's cut the family fighting, the family feud. It is unnecessary, and it is destructive of our shared national interests, the United States and Israel, and it takes our eye off the two balls we have to focus on. One is the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the other is the threat of a nuclear Iran, which is not only a threat to us and Israel, it is a threat to Palestinian leadership because Iran is the No. 1 supporter of Hamas, which is the foremost antagonist to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. The Senator from Arizona is absolutely right. Peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians requires very difficult, delicate negotiations. But we are at a moment--and my friend and I were together in Israel and the Palestinian areas in January of this year and we met with the leadership. It is an interesting moment, because in both countries the economy is doing pretty well. The Palestinians have seen a real surge in economic growth. Security is better on both sides. We have leadership on both sides: Netanyahu in Israel and the President of the Palestinian Authority, Abu Mazen, and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. We have three leaders there committed to the two-state solution, renouncing terrorism, a peaceful process. If, for some reason, people in the American Government continue this dispute, frankly, it makes it hard for not just the Israelis but the Palestinians to get into the peace process because we can't be more demanding than they are, if you will. I think Abu Mazen and Salam Fayyad want to move the peace process forward, I am convinced, as Prime Minister Netanyahu said. So it is time to lower voices and get over the family feud between the United States and Israel. It doesn't serve anybody's interests but our enemies: George Mitchell--I will say it here--is a saint. Whoever the saint of patience is, George works under that saint's aegis. Through his patience and persistence, the proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian leadership are about to begin, and they have the prospect of making some real progress.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 3456.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I introduced this amendment with a bipartisan group of cosponsors, Senators Collins of Maine, Byrd of West Virginia, Feinstein of California, Voinovich of Ohio, and Ensign of Nevada. Its purpose is to reauthorize--in fact, to save--the Opportunity Scholarship Program or OSP for students here in the District of Columbia. We are introducing our amendment to this legislation, and I use the word ``save'' because without prompt action by Congress, there is a reasonable probability that the OS Program, the scholarship program, will not just be limited to the number of students who are in it now-- and, in fact, there have not been any new students admitted in the last 2 years--but it will be doomed. As I explained here on the floor of the Senate yesterday, the current administrator has advised Secretary Duncan that it will no longer--the administrator being a corporation, an entity--that it will no longer administer the program without a reauthorization. No other entity has yet expressed a willingness to take over, given the constraints imposed by Congress. So despite President Obama's intent, stated in his budget message to continue this program, admittedly only for those 1,300-plus students currently participating in it, it appears that even that will become impossible. I think that would be a tragic result. This program has given a lifeline for students in failing schools in the District of Columbia, a scholarship to go to private or faith-based schools where, by all accounts, they are receiving a much better education and being given the talents with which they can make something much greater of their lives. We first offered our amendment to the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act, which was passed earlier today. I was proud to support that measure. It is good for the economy, good for people hurting in our economy, good for businesses hurting in the economy. Unfortunately, we were not able to get a vote on this amendment on that bill. As promised, we are here today again in another attempt to get a vote in the Senate on this issue. It is time sensitive. It is urgent. The life of this program hangs in the balance and, in a very real way, the future of these 1,300-plus children in the District who are benefiting from the program. The truth is, the FAA reauthorization bill has been referred to as a jobs initiative. I believe it is. What is more important to getting a good job than getting a good education? That is what this bill is all about. Achievement gaps in our schools, including our schools in the District of Columbia, have a profound impact on the quality of our workforce and on the future of our economy and, in a classically, characteristically American sense, focusing on the individual children who, by twists of fate, have ended up in schools that are not adequately preparing them. I will have more to say about this, but these are schools I am not just personally judging to be failing schools but, under characteristics, standards created by the Federal Government under the No Child Left Behind Act, are designated as failing schools. The OSP provides these low-income students in the District with a chance at a better education. Dollar for dollar, this program accomplishes this goal at a very low cost. Personally, how did I get involved in this? Of course like all of us, I have an interest in education. I have an interest in overcoming the achievement gaps in American schools that are so profoundly related to income and to race. More particularly, I have followed the status of this program in the District of Columbia for several years in my capacity as a ranking member and now chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee because of the committee's traditional jurisdiction in its governmental affairs aspect over and regarding the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capital. Last year our committee held a hearing on the Opportunity Scholarship Program and heard testimony from students in the program and their parents. It was evident from their testimony that this program has served as a lifeline to many students who otherwise would have been assigned to schools in which they would not have received a good education, as designated by No Child Left Behind. One parent whose annual income is only $12,200 testified that she had sought an opportunity scholarship, a voucher for her 8-year-old son after her 17-year-old nephew was shot and killed at the Ballou High School. Her son since has thrived in the Opportunity Scholarship Program, loves his school and his teachers, is part of the reading and debate club, and now wants to be a doctor. His hopes have been fortified and elevated, and his achievement has been remarkably improved. This mother believes that none of this would have happened had her son been forced to stay in the school he was in in the DC Public School System. Another young man, Ronald Holassie, started in the Opportunity Scholarship Program in sixth grade. He is now a high school student. He told the committee the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program ``has changed my life.'' Then he said: No one should take away my future and dreams of becoming a successful young man. No one should take that away from me and the other 1,700 children in this program. Now, because of the failure of Congress to support the program over the last couple of years or fill the spots opened by graduation, it is down to 1,300 children. Ronald Holassie became the deputy youth mayor for legislative affairs of the District of Columbia and is now applying to college. What he said was right. This program provides a quality education to economically disadvantaged students at half the per-pupil cost of educating students in the Public Schools. Our committee also heard from Tiffany Dunston. She told us: Receiving a scholarship was a blessing for my family and put me on the path to success. I grew up in a neighborhood with a lot of poverty and crime. And there were such low expectations for kids in my neighborhood schools. I would watch kids hanging out in the streets and not going to school. . . . My motivation to get the best education possible was my cousin James who was shot and killed at 17. I am always thinking of what he could have done. . . . With the help of a scholarship my dream [has been] realized. Those are very moving testimonies, personal anecdotes, affirmations of the worth of the program. But has there been an independent professional evaluation of the program? Yes, there has. Required by Congress, the person chosen to carry out that program is a man named Patrick Wolf, Dr. Patrick Wolf, the principal investigator of the valuation conducted by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences. This is a report required by Congress, carried out by an institute under the U.S. Department of Education. Dr. Patrick Wolf testified that the Opportunity Scholarship Program has had a statistically significant, positive effect on the test scores of students in reading in this program. I know some of the critics of the program, some of the opponents have downplayed these results. However, the fact is, as I have learned, most education innovation programs actually fail to show any significant gains, certainly in the first few years. Dr. Wolf has said when compared to all other similarly studied education innovations throughout our country--not talking about the the District of Columbia--``the reading impact of the DC voucher program is the largest achievement impact yet reported.'' He went on, the principal independent investigator, to say: The DC voucher program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the federal government's official research arm so far. So why stop it? Why terminate it? Certainly not based on this independent evaluation, certainly not based on the testimony our committee and others have heard from the parents and students involved. The reasons I leave to others, but I fear it is because of the opposition of teachers groups and others who don't want this kind of competition. In sum, Dr. Wolf's study used the gold standard of research methodology and found that the Opportunity Scholarship Program is getting very impressive results. Those who oppose OSP argue in part that vouchers take away funds from the public schools in the District. This is simply false. When it was adopted in Congress, to overcome the argument that it would take money away from the public schools, this program did exactly the opposite. We reached an agreement to get the votes to pass the program that whatever amount of money was given for the OPS, the so-called voucher program in the District of Columbia, exactly that amount of money would be added, not subtracted, to the public school budget of the District of Columbia. They otherwise would not have received that money for the public schools. Incidentally, a similar amount was appropriated for charter schools in Washington. Why? Because there is no one answer at this moment to the challenge to give every child endowed by our Creator, as the Declaration of Independence says, with an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which, in our time, is very much equated with the right to an equal education. The fact is, previous Congresses have been prepared to support all three of these ways because they were focused not on a single method of educating our children but on benefiting each and every one of our children. I know some say these scholarships are not the solution to the problems that beset the DC Public Schools. I agree. They are not the sole solution. But they can and should be part of the solution, certainly, while the reform efforts of the chancellor, Michelle Rhee, are going forward and until they reach a turning point, a tipping point where the schools really have been broadly improved. I strongly support Chancellor Rhee's efforts to reform and improve the public schools in the District. I strongly support efforts across the Nation to improve our public schools. That is always where we will educate most of our children. That is always where we should put the greatest emphasis. Chancellor Rhee, with the backing of Mayor Fenty, has moved aggressively to turn around failing schools in the District. She is getting results. She certainly has my full backing when it comes to the reforms she is working to implement. But Chancellor Rhee has said something so honest, so compassionate, so fair, so focused on the well- being of the children in Washington, DC, that, to me, it should end any argument against the amendment we are proposing. She has said herself, Chancellor Rhee, that the reform effort in the DC Public Schools is making progress but it is not going to happen overnight. As one of the students I just quoted said before our committee, the DC Public Schools did not get to the troubles they are in overnight, and they are not going to get out of the troubles they are in overnight. But Chancellor Rhee said this is a multiyear process. In the meantime, many District schools are failing our most economically challenged children. For this reason, Chancellor Rhee, Michelle Rhee, the head of the public schools in the District, has said the OSP should continue. I ask my colleagues, why wouldn't we want to use every means at our disposal to provide the best education possible to all children here in Washington, DC? Chancellor Rhee has been very explicit about this. She said that it may take 5 years to turn around many of the schools that are failing-- officially failing--to give a decent education to the students in the District of Columbia. She said, in a very personal and moving way, until she could say to parents of children who are in schools now designated as failing that they were no longer failing and the parents could be confident that their children would receive a good education in those schools, she would support the Opportunity Scholarship Program 5 years. Based on that assessment, our amendment reauthorizes the OSP for 5 years. Our amendment also continues to ask for a rigorous evaluation of the merits of the program. At the end of the 5 years, we will have better information on both the effectiveness of this scholarship voucher model and the reform effort in the DC Public Schools. I want to suggest to my colleagues, at the end of this 5-year period, we can determine whether we want to continue to provide Federal support for these opportunity scholarship, school choice programs based on conditions at that time. Our reauthorization proposal includes a number of improvements and enhancements to the program, including many sought by my friend and colleague, Senator Durbin, the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that has in previous years funded the Opportunity Scholarship Program. Specifically, we require that all schools in the program have certificates of occupancy, that core subject matter teachers have appropriate credentials and schools meet the accrediting standards of the DC Public Schools; that regular site inspections be conducted; and that participating students take the same test as students in District of Columbia Public Schools. There are currently 1,319 students benefiting from opportunity scholarships in the District of Columbia. I repeat that no students have been allowed in for the last 2 years because of congressional inaction. At its peak, 1,930 students were enrolled in the 2007 to 2008 school year. Because no new students can enroll, enrollment declined to 1,721 last year and then 1,319 this year. Last year, 216 students who were offered a scholarship had the offer revoked by the Secretary of Education of the United States because of failure to support the program. I want to repeat, over 85 percent of students in this program would otherwise be attending a school in need of improvement, corrective action, or restructuring--in other words, a failing school designated under the No Child Left Behind Act. In closing, I would say this: 1,319 is the number of students benefiting from the Opportunity Scholarship Program. If we do not reauthorize it, at this point there is no one to run the program and it probably will simply die. Those are 1,319 reasons to save this program and offer hope and opportunity to these young boys and girls in this city who want as much as any child in this country to live a life of success and self-sufficiency and deserve that right as much as any other child in the country. So I ask my colleagues to consider what we would want for our own children. All of us have the resources to essentially exercise school choice, and that is precisely what many of us do because we want the best for our children. But there are many parents around America--in this case, particularly, who live in our Nation's Capital, the place where we work--who have much more limited resources and also want the best for their children. They want to make a choice, which the Opportunity Scholarship Program allows them to make. So I appeal to my colleagues to take up this amendment. Let's have a vote on it, and let's act favorably on it to preserve this lifeline for a gifted and hopeful group of children in our Nation's Capital. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephen Obenhaus, who is a fellow involved in matters of education from our office be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of this bill.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be permitted to call up amendment No. 3381 and that at the end of my statement, the amendment then be withdrawn.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this amendment that I rise to offer has been cosponsored by a bipartisan group, I am pleased to say: Senators Collins of Maine, Byrd of West Virginia, Feinstein of California, Voinovich of Ohio, and Ensign of Nevada. The purpose of this amendment is to reauthorize--literally, to save-- the Opportunity Scholarship Program or OSP. Some know it as the DC school voucher program. We are offering our amendment to this legislation because without prompt action by Congress, the OSP, I am afraid, will end. The current administrator has advised Secretary Duncan that it will no longer administer the program absent a reauthorization, and no other entity has expressed the willingness to take over, given the constraints imposed by Congress under the prevailing set of circumstances. Despite the President's stated intent in his budget to continue the program, if only for those students currently participating, even that will become impossible. This amendment, as I will explain in a moment, will reauthorize this program for 5 years at essentially its current levels. As I will explain in a moment, it is working, and it is immensely popular with families of children and failing schools in the District of Columbia. It is supported by the chancellor of the school system, Michelle Rhee, and by Mayor Fenty. It is warmly endorsed by the families of the students who have benefited from this program as it literally changed their lives. Yet it has run into opposition in Congress, I fear from people who are committed to defending a status quo that is not working. Chancellor Michelle Rhee is working so hard to reform the school system of our Nation's Capital, the public school system. Why would she be supporting this Opportunity Scholarship Program that will allow some children--low-income children--in the District of Columbia to get this scholarship and go to a private or faith-based school? She said, in terms that were very compelling, as she testified before committees of Congress, the following: That if a parent of a student in a school that literally had been determined to be failing turned to her and said, can my child get a good education in the school the public school system sends her to, she can't now say yes to parents of students who are in these designated failing schools. And she said, I think with great strength and conviction and honesty--and she is the head of the public school system here--that until she can tell these parents that their children will get a good education in the public schools of the District of Columbia, she cannot in good conscience oppose this plan that will basically enable these children a lifeline while she is fixing the DC public schools--a lifeline to a better education, a better career, a better life. Her own estimate is that it will take her 5 years more to get the DC public schools to where she wants them and every parent of a child here in the District wants them to be. That is the length of the reauthorization of this program that our amendment would provide. I understand there will be a point of order raised against our amendment, as well as objections to proceeding to a vote on our amendment, and that, therefore, I will be obliged to withdraw my amendment. It was not possible on this bill to receive the consent necessary to bring up this amendment for a vote, although I am pleased to understand that no objections would likely be raised on the minority side to at least bringing up a vote for an amendment. I do want to serve notice that I will continue to push for a vote on this matter, because I think it is so critically important. I know there are several bills coming before the Senate, including the reauthorization of the FAA, which will come soon and that will be subject to amendment and, therefore, I will be afforded an opportunity--myself and my cosponsors--to amend those bills and to offer this opportunity scholarship amendment to those bills. I don't know at this moment that we have the 60 votes to pass this amendment, but what I am committed to doing is making sure we have debate on the amendment and a vote on the amendment so the Senate can be heard and, in that sense, is challenged to take a position on this amendment and this program which, I repeat, has been a lifeline for kids trying to get a decent education and build a better life. In my view, this amendment did belong on the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act--the underlying bill before the Senate-- because, obviously, the opportunity to seek and receive a better education enables our children to be better, more productive workers, to help our businesses and, of course, to grow our national economy. Achievement gaps in our schools have a profound effect on the quality of our workforce and on the future of our economy. Most importantly, the quality of our schools has a profound effect on the quality of the lives of the children who go to better schools and get a better education. Like so many millions and millions of others in our country today, including, I am sure, a lot of other Members of the Senate, my life was transformed by the public schools of my hometown of Stamford, CT, which gave me an education that enabled me to be the first person in my family to go to college, and then I was able to go to law school after that. There are within the District of Columbia so many gifted and talented students who are in schools that are developing their gifts or growing their talents by giving them a good education. The OSP takes a limited number of those--and they are low income--and gives them a chance for a better education and a better life. I regret that I am not going to be able to debate this issue and to get a vote on this amendment on this bill, but we are going to wait for the next opportunity to do so. I do want to make, however, some brief remarks on the substance here. I have followed the status of the OSP for several years in my capacity as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It is one of those strange twists of Senate committee jurisdiction that the governmental affairs part of the jurisdiction of our committee--the traditional historic jurisdiction before homeland security was added--included, according to the wisdom of a previous generation of Senators, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. So I can tell you we need only listen to the students in the program and their parents--as our committee has had the privilege to hear--to know this program has served as a life changer--not just a game changer but a life changer--for many of these children in this program. We also have a federally mandated study that documents the success of this program. Despite a lot of misleading statements by those who oppose the program, the science behind this study--an independent study required by a previous act of Congress authorizing this proposal-- proves that the program is working. It is one thing to hear the students and their parents talk about how their lives have been changed with the opportunity to go to a school that has made them feel they can be a success and educated them better, but Dr. Patrick Wolf, the lead investigator for the study that was authorized by a previous act of Congress, concluded: The DC voucher program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the Federal Government's official educational research arm so far. That is an awful lot to be able to say. So the path this bill has followed, the opposition to it, has been so frustrating. People say this is money that is coming out of the public school budget. The whole design of this original program was to add money in equal parts to the DC public schools--money it would not otherwise have received. It was a kind of compensatory balance: the same amount to the charter schools, which are doing very well here in Washington, and then the same amount to the opportunity scholarship program. So money not from the public schools, but an education opportunity for poor kids in Washington now going to schools designated as unable to educate them, and instead giving them the opportunity to go to better private or faith-based schools. I thank the Chair and my colleagues for allowing me the time to bring up my amendment. As I say, I look forward to engaging in the very near future in a larger discussion of these issues, and at greater length, by submitting this as an amendment to the next bill that comes to the Senate floor. Amendment No. 3381, withdrawn Pursuant, nonetheless, to the agreement I had with the leadership and my colleagues in the Senate, understanding there was not consent to proceed, I will now withdraw my amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Help Find the Missing Act, otherwise known as Billy's Law, which I am introducing today along with my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Gillibrand and Merkley. I was introduced to the issues Billy's Law addresses by two of my constituents, Jan and Bill Smolinski, who have lived through a parent's worst nightmare: the disappearance of their son. On the afternoon of August 24, 2004, then-31-year-old Billy Smolinski disappeared without a trace. He left behind a dog he loved and his brandnew house; a truck with his keys and wallet still inside; and parents who have spent every day since searching for him and praying for his return. One moment he was there, asking his neighbors to look after his dog for a few days, and the next he was gone without explanation. Jan and Bill Smolinski have spent countless hours working with law enforcement to try to find Billy. Through that experience, they discovered that we do a poor job managing data about missing adults. The bill we are introducing today will help correct those shortcomings so that families in similar situations can focus only on their missing loved ones and not have to worry that their agony will be prolonged simply because we fail to keep track of--and share--critical identifying data. Billy's Law does three things: It facilitates the sharing of data about missing people between agencies; it requires law enforcement to compile and track missing persons data that is not currently being collected consistently; and it provides funding to improve, monitor, and maintain that data. It is my hope that no parent will ever have to experience what Jan and Bill Smolinski are going through, and, as a parent, my heart truly goes out to them. Passing Billy's Law will help give families of missing adults confidence that we are doing everything we can to carefully track the information necessary to locate their loved ones.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Help Find the Missing Act, otherwise known as Billy's Law, which I am introducing today along with my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Gillibrand and Merkley. I was introduced to the issues Billy's Law addresses by two of my constituents, Jan and Bill Smolinski, who have lived through a parent's worst nightmare: the disappearance of their son. On the afternoon of August 24, 2004, then-31-year-old Billy Smolinski disappeared without a trace. He left behind a dog he loved and his brandnew house; a truck with his keys and wallet still inside; and parents who have spent every day since searching for him and praying for his return. One moment he was there, asking his neighbors to look after his dog for a few days, and the next he was gone without explanation. Jan and Bill Smolinski have spent countless hours working with law enforcement to try to find Billy. Through that experience, they discovered that we do a poor job managing data about missing adults. The bill we are introducing today will help correct those shortcomings so that families in similar situations can focus only on their missing loved ones and not have to worry that their agony will be prolonged simply because we fail to keep track of--and share--critical identifying data. Billy's Law does three things: It facilitates the sharing of data about missing people between agencies; it requires law enforcement to compile and track missing persons data that is not currently being collected consistently; and it provides funding to improve, monitor, and maintain that data. It is my hope that no parent will ever have to experience what Jan and Bill Smolinski are going through, and, as a parent, my heart truly goes out to them. Passing Billy's Law will help give families of missing adults confidence that we are doing everything we can to carefully track the information necessary to locate their loved ones.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Arizona, Mr. McCain, first for his leadership on this issue, which is consistent with a lifetime of support for America's freedom agenda, for the principles that are enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and that have always been at the center of our foreign policy when it has been at its best. This is a day of history. It is a day of history on the streets of Tehran and other cities in Iran on this 31st anniversary of the Iranian revolution. I heard a report today. It encapsulates what has happened to that revolution. Today, apparently, the granddaughter of Ayatollah Khamenei was arrested as a street protester. When they realized who she was, they immediately let her go.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I did. That is the wife of the former Prime Minister, I believe, Mr. Mousavi. His wife was beaten on the streets of Tehran today. This is a day of history in Tehran, and I hope we can make it a day of history in the U.S. Congress because if this legislation which Senator McCain and I and a bipartisan group of other Senators introduce is adopted, it will be the first time we impose economic sanctions on Iranian leaders for the human rights abuses of their own people. We have come full circle. We have obviously been concerned about Iran's sponsorship of terrorism. It is still the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism in the world, according to the State Department. Second, its nuclear weapons program menaces its neighbors in the world. But as so often happens with countries that threaten their neighbors in the world, that have no regard for human life, ultimately we come back to their core. And the core of the Iranian regime is rotten. It is rotten because it treats its own people not just with disrespect but with brutality. As my friend from Arizona has said, look at the television. Look at YouTube. Read the Internet, the text messages about what is happening on the streets of Iran as we speak today: remarkable demonstrations of courage by the people coming out to protest, to simply ask for their freedom, and unbelievable brutality against them for doing nothing more than asking for their universal human rights.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, indeed. I thank the Senator from Arizona. President Obama adopted the policy of reaching out to the Iranian regime. Personally, I thought he did the right thing. What he got in return for his outstretched hand was a clenched fist. I think the only thing constructive that has come out of this attempt to engage the Iranians, to begin a new chapter, to give them a peaceful way to avoid conflict with the rest of the world, the only constructive result of it is that we see that the problem in the relations between the United States and Iran is not the United States, it is the oppressive, extremist regime in Tehran. I think it is clear that President Obama has not only been disappointed but grows impatient and, I will say from what I perceive, angered by what has happened. That explains the increasing move, including just in the last day or two, of the imposition of new sanctions on companies related to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and individuals. This regime will not stop its nuclear weapons program, in my opinion, will not stop its support of terrorist killers, will not stop suppressing the human rights of its people unless it feels pain, unless it feels that perhaps its regime is in jeopardy. We can only do that now with tough sanctions, such as those that are proposed in the legislation we introduce today.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Arizona is very clear that these sanctions directed against the thugs in the Iranian Government who brutally suppress the rights of their own people will be very popular with the people of Iran. In my opinion, the economic sanctions that would be imposed in the legislation that passed the Senate unanimously about 10 days ago--those sanctions are tough, but if we have any hope of achieving an end to the Iranian nuclear weapons program through diplomacy, it has to be coupled with tough economic sanctions or else we will be left with no alternative but military action. There is a difference between the regime in Iran and the people of Iran. The people of Iran want a change in the regime, it is clear. There is nothing inherently at odds between the American people and the people of Iran. As a matter of fact, we have all sorts of histories and values and goals in common. The problem is the extremist, brutal, aggressive regime in Tehran, and the sooner it goes, the better. I hope the people of Iran hear this legislation we are introducing today, under the leadership of Senator McCain, as an expression of unanimity across party lines and ideological lines on behalf of the people of America that we stand with the people of Iran against the Government of Iran as it attempts to suppress the people.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I was with Senator McCain. It was such a baldfaced lie because we see Mr. Motaki get up and say Iran is the most democratic regime in the entire Middle East region and beyond and says, with regard to our complaints and the Europeans' complaints about the suppression of the rights of the Iranian people, the execution of political demonstrators, the jailing of thousands of peaceful political protesters, that is the law and if they violated the criminal law, they would be punished for it. When somebody is so detached from the truth as we know it from what we see with our own eyes, it is hard to trust them otherwise. I wish to add a word. If we adopt this proposal, as I believe we can and will when the general Iranian sanctions bill comes back from conference, we will have taken a significant first step in the direction of penalties on the Iranian regime for human rights abuses of its own people. I want to use this, and I ask my friend if he agrees that the impact of this legislation would be magnified many times over if our allied governments around the world, particularly in Europe, which has a tradition of support for human rights, also joined us in adopting laws that impose targeted sanctions against human rights abusers in Iran? It does not require previous U.N. Security Council action. There is nothing stopping our Congress or the EU from imposing targeted human rights sanctions as quickly as possible. I ask my friend if that would not make the power of what we hope to do in Congress many times more effective against the tyrants in Tehran.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, over the past several months, the Iranian government has carried out an unprecedented campaign of repression and violence against the Iranian people. Its targets have spanned everyone from religious clerics to women's rights advocates, as well as bloggers, students, photographers, children's advocates, human rights activists, journalists, and members of the political opposition. In fact, according to Reporters Without Borders, Iran now has more journalists in prison than any other country in the world. The targets of the Iranian regime's crackdown have suffered numerous and varied human rights abuses. Some have been dragged out of their homes and away from their families in the middle of the night, disappearing without charge and without process of law. Others have been beaten and tortured while in government custody, and in some cases, sexually abused. Still others have been prosecuted in mass trials by revolutionary courts and punished with draconian prison sentences, for no reason other than their political beliefs. And some have been executed. Human Rights Watch has rightly condemned Iran's crackdown ``a human rights disaster.'' These abuses are ongoing. Just in the last few hours, despite the efforts of the Iranian government to control the flow of information from their country, videos have gone up on YouTube showing peaceful protesters on the streets of Iranian cities being violently broken up, and individual Iranian citizens brutally beaten, by members of the Iranian security forces. These human rights abuses are a clear violation of multiple international agreements signed by the Iranian government, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. To be clear, this isn't about the outside world dictating our values to Iran. This is about the failure of Iran's own leaders to live up to the international human rights obligations that they themselves voluntarily committed to, both through the international agreements they have signed and through their own constitution. All we are asking of Iran's leaders is that they respect their own laws. Unfortunately, it is increasingly clear that Iran's government does not respect its obligations--whether with regard to human rights record or its nuclear activities. The legislation that we are introducing today has a clear purpose; namely, to shine a bright light onto the human rights abuses being committed in Iran as we speak, and make clear to the people who are perpetrating them that there is going to be a cost to be paid for doing so. I am very encouraged that this legislation has already won the support of a broad bipartisan coalition of cosponsors--many of whom unfortunately could not be here today because of the weather. They include Senators Durbin, Kyl, Bayh, Collins, Casey, Brownback, Gillibrand, Graham, and Kaufman. I would especially like to thank my colleague Senator McCain for his leadership on this issue. As he mentioned, Senator McCain sought to attach an earlier version of this legislation as an amendment to the comprehensive Iran sanctions bill that was then on the floor of the Senate and that the Senate unanimously passed. Although we were unable to attach Senator McCain's amendment to the broader sanctions bill at that time for procedural reasons, I remain very hopeful that the human rights legislation we are introducing today will become part of the comprehensive Iran sanctions bill when the House and Senate meet in conference. And I hope that President Obama will aggressively apply these sanctions once they are signed into law. More broadly, I hope that the Obama administration will make human rights a centerpiece of our Iran policy in the days and weeks ahead. I understand that, on Monday, there will be what is called a ``Universal Periodic Review'' of Iran's human rights record at the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva, and that the administration hopes to use this event to shine a spotlight on the human rights abuses that are being committed there. I welcome that initiative, and appeal to other countries to support it as well. Finally, I would like to appeal to our international partners, in particular in the European Union, to join us in imposing these kinds of targeted sanctions against human rights abusers in Iran. We all know what the Iranian regime has been doing to its people, and I hope that Europeans in particular--given the importance they attach to human rights--will not turn a blind eye to these abuses. We don't need to wait for a U.N. Security Council resolution to do this. There is nothing stopping the EU from imposing target human rights sanctions right now. Mr. President, this is a piece of legislation that has significance if it is adopted, in effect, we hope, but this is also our way--the 10 of us who have sponsored this legislation, and I would guess every Member of the Senate when it comes to a vote will vote for it--to say to two groups of people, first, the government in Iran, that we see what you are doing, we know what you are doing, it is intolerable, it is unacceptable, and you will be punished for it; and secondly, to say to the people of Iran--who have the courage to be in the streets protesting and asking for the rights their government is supposed to give them according to international treaties that Iran itself has signed--we are with you. The struggle for freedom and justice against tyranny is often a long one, it is always a hard one, but history tells us that, in the end, freedom and justice prevail. That means the people of Iran will prevail over the totalitarian government that now brutally rules them. I thank the Chair, I thank my friend from Arizona for his leadership, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to vote for cloture on the nomination of Martha Johnson to be Administrator of the General Services Administration. The point of cloture is to allow this critical agency to finally have a permanent leader. It would be the first time in nearly 2 years and could potentially save America's taxpayers billions of dollars in the bargain. Let me give a few examples of what is at stake, which is to say what the General Services Administration can do for us. Last year, Federal agencies bought $53 billion worth of goods and services, and they did so through contracts negotiated by the General Services Administration, the GSA. Having GSA negotiate these procurements lets the individual agencies focus on their core missions, doing what we or previous Congresses created them to do. It also allows the Federal Government to leverage our buying power because if the buying is occurring from one central agency, we can get, in conventional terms, volume discounts, leading to lower costs and, therefore, savings to the taxpayers. We need strong leadership at GSA to ensure these savings are a reality. For example, in 2007, GSA awarded the NETWORX contracts to provide telephone network and information technology services to all Federal agencies. That is a program estimated to be valued at, at least, $68 billion in the course of its 10-year lifetime. These contracts will allow agencies to take full advantage of the new technologies their colleagues in the private sector use every day to increase efficiency and lower costs. But without a permanent Administrator at GSA, agencies have been slow to move to the NETWORX services, costing taxpayers more than $150 million to date and an additional $18 million every month. Given GSA's wide responsibilities in providing information technology and telecommunications services, I am concerned that we lack a confirmed Administrator at a time when we are also trying, of course, to strengthen our cyber-defenses. Government Web sites, such as private Web sites, are constantly under attack. GSA needs to play and can play a very important role in ensuring that our Federal IT systems are resistant to those cyber-attacks. Furthermore, because of the government's buying power, GSA's purchases will have a natural positive spillover effect in the private sector. In other words, GSA, by its own requirements associated with purchases, can drive technologies that then become more available to the general public, and I am thinking here specifically of technologies that can defend against cyber-attack on private companies as well as on public Web sites. Here is another example about another function of the GSA. GSA is effectively the government's landlord, with 8,600 buildings and assets under its control that are valued at more than $500 billion. It is one of the largest, if not the largest, property management organizations in the world. Another of GSA's roles is to help other agencies dispose of buildings and property they no longer need. Across the government, these numbers are both stunning and unsettling. There are different agencies that own thousands of buildings worth about $18 billion that are not being used. Every day I hear Members come to the floor saying we need to work hard to trim the fat from the Federal budget so we can cut the deficit. I agree. Yet the GSA--the very agency established to help make government operations more cost efficient--has been languishing without a leader for over half a year and I think in that sense is losing some opportunities to save some money. What is frustrating is that a hold has been placed on this nominee for reasons that have nothing to do with her qualifications or her personal history. That is why I am glad Senator Reid filed a cloture motion and we have forced this nomination to the floor. It is important, in a totally nonpartisan way, that we get a full-time Administrator in here at GSA. Martha Johnson's nomination received the unanimous support of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in June of last year--more than half a year ago. So that says she had total bipartisan support in our committee based on her experience and qualifications, and I am confident she has wide bipartisan support in the full Senate as well. I hope and trust we will see that when the vote occurs on cloture and final confirmation at around 3 o'clock. I hope this nomination is a call to action and common sense--and not only bipartisan cooperation but the cooperation of every Member here who has the right to hold up nominations but ought to think about the public interest and the national interest when they do this--that we cannot continue the practice of holding nominees ``hostage,'' as President Obama said yesterday, for reasons that are parochial and unrelated to the nominee's ability to do the job they have been nominated for. I think these kinds of actions damage the Senate as an institution and further reduce the public's respect for how we do our business. I wish to remind my colleagues at this point how well qualified this nominee is. To begin with, Ms. Johnson is a former Chief of Staff of the GSA. So she already knows the agency inside and out and will be ready to roll up her sleeves and get to work on day one--no on-the-job training needed. This is crucial both to the efficiency and morale of an agency that has not had a permanent Administrator since April of 2008--almost 2 years. April 2008 was the time when the former Director was asked to resign by the previous administration. GSA has since been run by five acting Administrators who could not act with the same authority as a Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed person in that top job. But both before and after her government service, Martha Johnson's career shows a quite extraordinary mix of work in the public, private, and academic sectors that we should want in government service. Ms. Johnson holds a BA in economics and history from Oberlin College and an MBA from Yale Business School. She also taught some classes during this time. After graduating from Yale, Ms. Johnson began her career in the private sector as a manager at Cummins Engines Company. She then had a series of other management positions in the private sector and was asked by President Clinton to become Associate Deputy Secretary of Commerce, and then Chief of Staff of GSA from 1996 to 2001. Since leaving government service in 2001, Ms. Johnson has served as a vice president for the Council for Excellence in Government--a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing the effectiveness of government at all levels--and, most recently, she served as a vice president for Computer Sciences Corporation. This is an extraordinarily experienced and qualified nominee, and that is why I think she deserves--and I think will receive--broad bipartisan support when this matter comes to a vote at around 3 o'clock. It is past time for GSA to finally have a permanent Administrator, and we happen to have a nominee here who is remarkably well suited for the job. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote ``yes'' on cloture, and then we can have a final vote and get this able person on the job working for the American people and I think help us not only manage the Federal Government's activities better but to save billions--literally billions--of dollars for the American taxpayers. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I would yield, if I might, to my friend and colleague from Louisiana whatever time she needs to speak at this time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I cannot help but note that the occupant of the chair presides not only over the Senate but other organizations to which I am privileged to belong. I ask to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, later this afternoon, the Senate will vote on a cloture motion on the nomination of Patricia Smith to be Solicitor of the Department of Labor. Last Friday, I believe, Senator Reid also filed a cloture motion on another nomination, and it is that nomination I would like to talk about because it comes out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to chair. That is the nomination of Martha Johnson to be Administrator of the General Services Administration. It has become unfortunate practice, I believe, that Members have been holding up Executive nominations, in some cases, and I am confident it is the case with regard to Martha Johnson, for reasons unrelated to her qualifications. She is extremely well qualified and very much needed at the General Services Administration, as I will note in a moment. As I understand the process we will follow this week--presuming, as I hope will be the case, that cloture is granted later this afternoon, when we vote on the nominee for Solicitor of the Department of Labor, whenever the vote on that nomination occurs--hopefully, sooner than later this week--immediately thereafter, we will go to a vote on cloture on this nomination of Martha Johnson. In anticipation of that, I wished to speak to my colleagues about what is coming. She is an extraordinary nominee, in my opinion, for a job that is critically important to the efficient operation of the Federal Government, about which a lot of us have been speaking with intensity in recent times. She is a former Chief of Staff at the General Services Administration, so she comes with some background that will give her the opportunity to hit the ground running, and that is important in an agency that has not had a permanent leader since April of 2008. Here we are in February of 2010. GSA has not had a permanent leader since April 2008, when the former Director was asked to resign by the previous administration. Since then, the agency has had five Acting Administrators. It is obviously time for stable leadership. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously endorsed her nomination last June, more than a half year ago. Since that time, GSA has undergone several changes in top management, including the departure of the Chief of Staff and the retirement of the Deputy Administrator. So it has been very frustrating for the members of our committee to see such a qualified nominee being held up in the Senate for more than a half year because of a hold that had nothing to do with the nominee's qualifications. I wish to speak for a moment to my colleagues about the full scope of GSA's responsibilities. It is a critically important agency of our Government that mostly works out of the spotlight. GSA is often called the Federal Government's landlord because it provides workspace and office services for almost every Federal office and agency across our country, from court houses to ports of entry. With 8,600 buildings and $500 billion in assets under its control, GSA must be either the largest property management organization in the world or certainly one of the top and largest property management organizations in the world. But GSA actually is far more than just the Federal Government's landlord. It has 12,000 employees spread across the country in 11 districts. They help guide Federal spending on everything from basic office equipment to the Federal fleet of more than 200,000 vehicles owned and leased by the U.S. Government. GSA's purchasing divisions have broad effect on the rest of the economy since, as an early acquirer of new technologies, including green technologies, the agency has helped and will continue to help spur production that brings down costs and makes these technologies available and affordable to the broader consumer market. GSA is that important, that it can help build a market for an innovative transformational technology. In fact, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the Stimulus Act, which we adopted last year, gave GSA specific responsibility to help green the Federal Government by providing $5 billion to make Federal buildings more energy efficient and $300 million to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles for the Federal fleet. GSA also has wide responsibilities for providing information technology and telecommunications services for Federal agencies. With its leadership, GSA can ensure that the Federal Government is using cutting-edge technology to lower costs, better engage with citizens and detect and defend against cyber threats. In other words, GSA spends so much money every year acquiring information technology systems that if it requires the providers to put together systems that are resistant and defensive to the kinds of cyber attacks that, unfortunately, public and private information networks are under today, it can drive that technology development, which then will be more broadly available to the private sector as it acquires information technology equipment. A lot of big and important responsibilities are there, meaning the agency is in need of strong leadership. If confirmed, Ms. Johnson will face many challenges, and I wish to take a moment to lay out for my colleagues a few which have come to the attention of our committee, which has oversight of GSA. In the area of procurement, contracts negotiated by GSA must leverage the vast buying power of the Federal Government so agencies get more value for the taxpayers' dollar. Last year, Federal agencies bought approximately $53 billion of goods and services right off GSA schedules and other GSA contracts, which offer everything from office supplies to human resource services, to security equipment, to energy management services and through other contracts negotiated by GSA. Having GSA negotiate these procurement agreements lets these customer agencies stay focused on their core missions. In other words, the agencies do not have to get into all the back-and- forth details on negotiating these contracts. The experts at GSA do it for them. The agencies can focus on what they are supposed to be doing. Some agencies, if I may speak directly, have lost confidence of the ability of GSA to provide the best products at the best prices and have begun to negotiate their own contracts or interagency contracts. This duplicates services offered by GSA. It is effectively a waste of Federal money and effectively also defeats the purpose of GSA, which was created by President Harry S. Truman, in 1949, with the specific intent of streamlining the Federal Government's purchasing process so every agency of the Federal Government did not have its own separate purchasing division that may have done well or not so well but certainly not as efficiently as one for the whole Federal Government. The second problem, similar to this one, exists in GSA's property management activities, with agencies sometimes questioning whether GSA has now met their needs in the most cost-effective manner. Another problem a new administrator must address is the amount of excess or underutilized property owned by the Federal Government. The Office of Management and Budget has reported--these are stunning numbers--that the Federal Government owns 21,000 buildings, worth about $18 billion, that are underused or no longer needed, but they are sitting there. In effect, the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, has put the management of Federal property on their high-risk list for this reason. Not all those properties are under GSA's control, but one of its jobs is to help other agencies dispose of excess property. That is another reason why we need a full-time administrator there. Think about it, $18 billion. The freeze the President has announced-- which I support--doesn't come to much more than that, when you think about the potential for selling some of this property and bringing more revenue to the government. Let me come back to Martha Johnson. This is a job with big challenges, as I have described, in part. She brings a tremendous wealth of experience in the private, nonprofit, and government sectors. She has a B.A. in economics and history from Oberlin College and a masters in business from Yale Business School. After graduating from Yale, Ms. Johnson began her career in the private sector at Cummins Engines Company. She had a series of other management positions in the private sector and then was called on by the Clinton administration to be the Associate Deputy Secretary of Commerce and then, as I mentioned earlier, Chief of Staff of GSA from 1996 to 2001--very relevant and indispensable experience. After leaving government, Ms. Johnson was a vice president for the Council for Excellence in Government, which is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing the effectiveness of government at all levels, and most recently she has served as vice president at Computer Sciences Corporation. She is extremely well qualified, has broad qualifications, including extensive experience at GSA. All these varied experiences make Martha Johnson a perfect fit for the responsibilities and challenges she will face as GSA Administrator. The fact is, she, Martha Johnson, has had broad bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture. I even preserve the hope that there may be a decision to vitiate the cloture vote, that we go right to a final vote, and we confirm this excellent nominee so she can go to work for the American people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to salute Pamela Gavin, who retires this week after serving as Superintendant of the Senate Office of Public Records for 24 years. In her service to the Senate, Pam has had the enormous responsibility of maintaining disclosure records under numerous laws, including those under the Federal Election Campaign Act, the Ethics in Government Act, and the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Tens of thousands of new records a year must be archived, adding to the already massive papers in this collection, and Pam's stewardship has been impeccable. I especially want to pay tribute today to Pam's contributions to the implementation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act. As the Committee on Homeland Security worked to draft expansive changes to the Lobbying Disclosure Act, which were included in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, Pam provided indispensible technical expertise. And after the act was signed into law, she worked tirelessly to make sure its implementation was smooth. She has been the driving force behind the development of an electronic filing system, providing guidance to the lobbying community to assist it in complying with the law, and ensuring access to researchers, reporters and the public. Pam is someone who understands that we can increase accountability through transparency, and in pursuit of that goal she has been a model not only for the Senate but for the entire government. Those who have worked closely with Pam will miss her cheerful smile, her enthusiasm, and warm consideration of all her colleagues. Although she is retiring, she will always be a dear member of the Senate community, and I wish her and her family the very best as she embarks on this new stage of her life.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Senate is at its best when we tackle challenges together, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents working together to solve the big problems that confront this country. Today we face a monumental problem--our fiscal crisis. Consider the measure before us now; legislation to increase the statutory limit on public debt to over $14 trillion--a staggering number. Many of us are loathe to approve this measure to allow the Federal Government to add nearly $2 trillion to our national debt. Yet the alternative is also not acceptable; namely, that the United States default on its obligations. If we fail to increase the national debt limit, the United States would have to suspend payments for Active-Duty military salaries, for Social Security benefits, for veterans' compensation and pension payments, and for unemployment benefit and Medicare payments to States. Still, we should not approve this dramatic expansion of public debt without taking steps here and now to reverse course and get control over this economic crisis. We can do that in a bipartisan manner by approving the Conrad-Gregg amendment. This amendment, which I have cosponsored and which has the support of President Obama, would put in place a commission to make recommendations on how to reduce the deficit. These recommendations would be considered by the House and Senate under fast-track procedures and would not be amendable. Like so many Americans I have become increasingly alarmed by the magnitude of mounting debt our country carries and the potential impact of our unfunded liabilities. I believe that if we fail to act, we will be confronted with an economic tsunami that will far surpass the current crisis. The adoption of this amendment to authorize a fiscal commission will be the first step toward preventing the economic disaster that is looming on the horizon. And, adoption of this amendment will send a message to the American people that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are ready to work together to put our country first and address the critical issues of the day. Earlier this year I joined my colleague, Senator Voinovich, in introducing a similar bipartisan proposal, the SAFE Commission Act, and last month I joined the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, and the ranking member, Senator Gregg, in introducing the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action Act of 2009, a bill which is reflected in the amendment before us. Both bills call for a fiscal commission to make recommendations on how to restore fiscal sanity and balance. And both bills require that the recommendations be considered under fast-track procedures under which amendments are not allowed. My committee, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, held a hearing on fiscal commissions last year and heard testimony from Senators Conrad and Gregg as well as former Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan and former Comptroller General David Walker in support of this concept. As our long-term economic challenges mount, the need for this type of commission is ever more evident. I have no doubt that all my colleagues are aware of the daunting numbers: Our national debt is about $12 trillion and rising. Nearly half of the $7 trillion in publicly held debt is held by foreign governments. Interest on Treasury debt securities this year is $382 billion. Consider now many worthwhile programs we could fund with $382 billion. Our current national debt pales in comparison to our unfunded promises and commitments. Current unfunded liabilities considered together total $56.4 trillion, according to information published by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. Mr. President, $36.3 trillion of this is Medicare benefits not covered by taxes and other contributions, and $6.6 trillion of this amount is Social Security benefits not covered by taxes and other contributions. This unfunded liability comes to $483,000 for each American household. Total spending for this current year is around $3.7 trillion, and only $1.2 trillion of this is discretionary, or subject to appropriations. Simply put, we have very little control over most of our spending. And this pattern only gets worse as the 77 million baby boomers retire in ever larger numbers further straining the balance sheets for Medicare and Social Security. My great concern in the context of health care reform has always been that we not do anything to exacerbate the uncontrollable costs on our national ledger. Our children and grandchildren must pay these bills and face the economic perils that large deficits can induce, including reduced national savings, pressure on interest rates, and dependence on foreign governments to finance our debt. Recently, a lead Moody's analyst, when commenting on our current and projected deficits, stated that the AAA rating of the United States is not guaranteed. The solutions to addressing our staggering fiscal imbalances revolve around implementing unpopular measures like cutting spending or raising revenues, and controlling health care costs. Yet Congress as an institution has proven itself incapable of enacting such bitter medicine. Our constituents don't want their taxes raised, their benefits cuts, or their Federal services pared back. The very structure of Congress makes it difficult to advance the kinds of legislative proposals that are necessary to achieve substantial and long-term fiscal balance in the face of constituent opposition. And the partisanship that has become pervasive makes a difficult task impossible. This is why I am convinced that the only way to enact real fiscal reforms is by a special process such as that contained in this proposal to establish a fiscal commission. I commend President Obama for coming out in support of this amendment and urge all Members of this body to vote for this amendment and in doing so vote for the future vitality of our economy and strength as a nation.