Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I understand this has not been discussed with the minority leader, this proposal for a vote, and I would therefore object.

Mr. SARBANES. I would respectfully request of the leader that he should have a discussion with the minority leader before seeking to set the agenda.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I object for the same reason. I think the majority leader should have a responsible discussion with the minority leader before setting the agenda of the Senate. It should be an elemental courtesy in the conduct of the Senate's business.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I take this time to draw to the attention of my colleagues a significant report, released on February 9, 2006 in Washington, DC, by the Committee for Economic Development, CED, a group of some 200 business leaders and several university presidents. The CED statement, ``Education for Global Leadership: The Importance of International Studies and Foreign Language Education for U.S. Economic and National Security'', asserts that the United States will be less competitive in the global economy because of a shortage of strong foreign language and international studies programs in our colleges and high schools and warns, too, that the lack of Americans educated in foreign languages and cultures is hampering efforts to counter terrorist threats. The cochairs of the CED subcommittee that produced the report are Charles E.M. Kolb, President of CED; Alfred T. Mockett, CED trustee, former chairman and CEO, CGI-AMS, Inc.; and another CED trustee, Dr. John Brademas, president emeritus of New York University and former Member--1959-1981--of the U.S. House of Representatives from Indiana. Dr. Brademas brought long and distinguished experience to his responsibilities as cochair of the CED subcommittee. A member of the House of Representatives from 1959 to 1981, he served throughout those years on the House Committee on Education and Labor and for 10 years chaired its Select Subcommittee on Education. He played a major role in writing the landmark education legislation of that period, including the Elementary and Secondary School Act and the Higher Education Act, and he was the author of the International Education Act of 1966. The recommendations in the CED Report include teaching international content across the curriculum and at all levels of learning, to expand American students' knowledge of other countries and cultures; expanding the training pipeline at every level of education to address the paucity of Americans fluent in strategic languages, especially critical, less commonly taught languages; national leaders--political leaders as well as the business and philanthropic communities and the media--should educate the public about the importance of improving education in languages other than English and in international studies. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the remarks of Dr. Brademas on the CED report, ``Education for Global Leadership.''

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, ``Celebrating Community: A Tribute to Black Fraternal, Social and Civic Institutions'' is the theme this year of African American History Month. On this last day of the Month I want to pay a special tribute to the Alpha Phi Alpha, which is the oldest of the African American Greek-letter collegiate fraternities and sororities. Alpha, which I am proud to say has its headquarters in Baltimore, this year celebrates its centennial. For the past one hundred years Alpha has upheld the principles of scholarship, fellowship, good character and the uplifting of humanity principles that command our respect and admiration. It has been my privilege to work closely with Alpha in the effort to establish an appropriate memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in our Nation's Capital. More than 20 years ago I introduced legislation to assure that a monument would be built, and it took a decade to get the legislation enacted. Since 1996, when the bill was signed into law, we have moved steadily forward. The site on the Mall is set, lying between the Memorial to President Franklin Roosevelt and the Lincoln Memorial. The magnificent design is in hand. The challenging work of raising the necessary funds continues, and in this Alpha and the other African American campus organizations play a vital role. I look forward to the day, not too far in the future, when we will have on the Mall a monument worthy of Dr. King's legacy, to remind us and future generations of the struggles the civil rights movement endured, and to inspire us all to continue the movement. Even as we celebrate our progress toward a memorial to Dr. King, we mourn the loss of two great Americans, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King. When Rosa Parks died 4 months ago, all Americans mourned her passing. Fifty years ago, with a singular courageous act that in the words of the New York Times became a ``mythic event,'' she galvanized the civil rights movement and helped to write a new and hopeful chapter in our history. As the Times put it, ``(W)hat seems a simple gesture of defiance so many years later was in fact a dangerous, even reckless move'' at the time. Her steadfastness in the face of harsh and unjust laws struck a chord in the nation's conscience and challenged us to build a society worthy of the principles on which it was founded. When Ms. Parks was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 1999, I was honored to have an opportunity to meet her. At the time of her death I joined with my Senate colleagues in honoring her at her memorial service. We lost a second courageous leader with the death more recently of Coretta Scott King. She was a student at the New England Conservatory of Music with plans for a musical career when she met her future husband, but she was from the beginning his steadfast partner in the arduous fight for civil rights and a more decent and humane society. After Dr. King's death she continued the fight with the quiet dignity and determination that were her hallmarks. It was a privilege to work with Mrs. King on the legislation establishing Martin Luther King day as a national holiday; I deeply regret that she could not live long enough to see the memorial to her husband built as well. Last month we honored Dr. Martin Luther King and his legacy. If he were with us today, Dr. King would be deeply gratified by the national tributes paid to Ms. Parks and Mrs. King. In the 50 years since Martin Luther King, Jr., Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks first challenged the Nation to live up to its founding principles, we have come a long way. We have changed our laws fundamentally to assure the rights of all Americans. We have worked together--at the local, State and national level--to create hope and opportunity where there was none, and to guarantee respect for every person. The role of the Black fraternal, social and civic institutions in bringing about these changes cannot be overstated. Over the years they have fought for justice in courts of law and in the court of public opinion, and worked tirelessly to promote equality and opportunity for all. Still, much remains to be done. Working together we continue to build the society for which Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King stood, and fought. Success in this effort is the finest tribute we can pay to them.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts who wishes to speak on a different subject.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I join my able colleague from Alabama in supporting the nomination of Ben Bernanke to be a member and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. We will be voting on a 14- year term on the Board of Governors, one of the longest terms we give to anyone other than Federal judges in the workings of our political system, and a 4-year term to be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Before I address Dr. Bernanke, I wish to take a moment, as my colleagues have, to say a word about Chairman Alan Greenspan. Chairman Greenspan chairs the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee that is right now taking place. Then he steps down. He has served for over 18 years as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the second-longest tenure in our history, exceeded only by William McChesney Martin. There have been occasions when I have differed with Chairman Greenspan on some of his decisions, most notably the green light he gave to large and excessive tax cuts in 2001 which helped to precipitate us into a serious deficit situation. But this ought not obscure the many accomplishments and successes during his long tenure. Others have referenced the stock market crash which happened only a few months after he took office; the Asian Russian long-term capital management crisis, some 10 years later in the late 1990s; and, of course, the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Throughout all of that, he brought a steadying presence to the workings of the financial system and a shrewd understanding of the situation and what needed to be done to address it. I commend Chairman Greenspan for bringing greater transparency into the workings of the Federal Reserve system, something which Dr. Bernanke has indicated he intends to continue and support, and Chairman Greenspan's rejection of rigid policymaking, rejecting the idea that there was a rigid formula or ideology by which you could establish a monetary policy. In particular, he was able to push the limits on lowering unemployment and providing jobs while still being able to control inflation. As a result we were able to get the unemployment rate down to levels that everyone previously had argued would lead to a spurt of inflation. Chairman Greenspan thought that wouldn't happen. It didn't happen. Now we have established different benchmarks in terms of monetary policy. Dr. Bernanke, whose nomination is before us, is no stranger to the Senate. This is the fourth time in 3 years that we have been called upon to consider his nomination to a very significant position. In 2002, he was nominated to serve as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. He was renominated to that position in the following year. In 2005, he was nominated to serve as Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. Today, we have his nomination to serve as Chairman for a term of 4 years and as a Governor for a term of 14 years. There is no question about Dr. Bernanke's qualifications for the position to which he has been nominated. He has served with distinction on the Federal Reserve Board from all accounts. He has had direct experience of economic policymaking at the Council of Economic Advisers and he has a very distinguished academic and scholarly background with a B.A. in economics from Harvard and a Ph.D. in economics from MIT. He has been on the faculty at MIT and at Stanford. Most recently, of course, he was at Princeton, where he served as chair of the economics department from 1996 to 2002, a department recognized as one of the very best, if not the best, in the country. He commands great respect from his peers in the profession and I think great respect from all who have come in contact with him. I do, though, want to take a moment to speak a bit about the seriousness of the economic challenges we face and which Dr. Bernanke will face as he assumes this important responsibility. We have seen the weakest recovery in our labor market of any post recessionary period since World War II--that is, in 60 years. While we have had some recent improvement, compared with recoveries from previous recessions, we have fallen well short. Furthermore, real wages have fallen over the past few years for middle class and working Americans. Meanwhile, U.S. economic policy has been marked by a recklessness in its reliance on borrowing on the apparent assumption that substantial borrowing at home and abroad can go on and on and will always remain a continuing option for us. The consequence of this is that we are running dangerous current account deficits and substantial budget deficits in amounts that dwarf anything we have previously experienced. Many observers think that these deficits--the fiscal deficit and the current account deficit threaten our economy and our ability to deal with the challenges of the future. Mr. President, the most recent figures indicate that economic growth has slowed to almost a crawl over the past 3 months. It was just over 1 percent in the last quarter of last year. That is the lowest rate of growth since 2002, and but for the buildup of inventories that took place in the fourth quarter, economic activity fell by three-tenths of 1 percent. So it was only the inventory accumulation that kept us from experiencing negative economic growth. Mr. Bernanke, along with his colleagues at the Fed and those on the Open Market Committee, will face questions concerning the conduct of monetary policy. Of course, monetary policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. It plays a significant role in determining the shape and direction of the economy. Therefore, we need to consider it in the broader context. In fact, the Federal Reserve Act clearly mandates two goals: maximum employment and stable prices. Those goals are set out in the Federal Reserve Act and constitute the guidance and direction from the Congress to the Federal Reserve for the objectives in the conduct of monetary policy. The act says: The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long-run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long-run potential to increase production so as to promote effectively goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. Accomplishing the Fed's dual mandate is the most important responsibility of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The experience of the 1990s, with unemployment down at 4 percent and inflation below 3 percent, demonstrated that these goals can be harmonized, unlike the assertion by some that they are inherently in conflict. Dr. Bernanke was pressed on this point in his confirmation hearing because he has been a proponent of what is called ``inflation targeting,'' which requires the Fed to set a specific numeric target for inflation, announce that target to the markets and then manage the economy with the objective of reaching that target. I want to underscore the importance of the Fed honoring its statutory dual mandate and not replacing it with a policy of inflation targeting. We must be concerned that if a numerical figure were to be set for inflation to the detriment of other considerations, employment foremost among them, policymaking would shift and so, too, would the debate about the health and strength of the economy. I fear that the focus of the debate would become not whether the Fed was successful in meeting the dual mandate, but rather the Fed's one-sided success or failure in reaching a numerical inflation goal. Chairman Greenspan himself has made this point. Bloomberg News recently reported: Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has rejected adopting a target, saying it would rob U.S. policymakers of the flexibility they need to respond to developments in a rapidly changing economy. I was, therefore, somewhat reassured when at his confirmation hearing Dr. Bernanke told the Banking Committee that he ``subscribes entirely to the Humphrey-Hawkins mandate,'' which puts employment growth and output growth on a fully equal footing with inflation in terms of the Federal Reserve's objectives. Furthermore he went on to say, ``I would not be interested in pursuing that matter''--referring to inflation targeting--``if I thought it involved changing the mandate of the Federal Reserve.'' Mr. President, I put this issue out here only as a matter to be focused on as we move ahead into the future. Dr. Bernanke indicated that it was not his intention to seek changes in the Federal Reserve Act. I think that is a wise and prudent course to follow. How much time remains?

Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself an additional 3 minutes. We learned last week that our economy slowed dramatically over the past 3 months to a growth rate of 1.1 percent, the slowest growth level in the past 3 years and, obviously, insufficient to meet our needs. Moreover, as I noted, even that modest growth was based entirely on inventory growth, which is a one-time shot for the economy and not a sustainable basis for growth. The current unemployment rate of about 5 percent obscures the fact that the job creation during the course of this administration is the worst since the Hoover administration. In other words, every previous administration since that of Herbert Hoover has produced more jobs than this administration has produced. In fact, real wages are down for a great number of Americans, and it is little wonder that working Americans are concerned about their economic future. Given these factors and the potential problems with our record level of deficits and debt at home and abroad, I urge the Fed to consider taking a pause from what has been a steady upward push in interest rates. We have had 13 successive increases in interest rates. Short- term rates have gone from 1 percent to 4.25 percent. We had 1-percent growth in the economy last quarter. Furthermore, let me note two or three other serious issues. One is our current account deficit. Our international accounts are steeply imbalanced. We expect the current account deficit to approach $800 billion for 2005, in excess of 6 percent of GDP. We are borrowing from abroad over $2 billion on a daily basis to finance this deficit, and there is a broad consensus among economic experts that current account deficits of this magnitude are not sustainable. We will be obligated to pay this debt out into the future, which means it will come right out of the standard of living at home. Warren Buffet, talking about this situation, warned that we risk becoming what he called a ``sharecropper's society.'' Furthermore, as we continue to fall deeper into debt with the rest of the world, we are experiencing growing imbalances here at home. Real wages for the majority of working Americans have declined, while the real incomes of the wealthiest have increased astronomically. A recent Bloomberg News story observed that U.S. wages are lagging inflation and, even with unemployment near a 4-year low, workers have little leverage to demand higher pay. Other articles have reported the record bonuses that are now being given out on Wall Street. In fact, Chairman Greenspan in testimony before the committee stated: I think the income distribution issue is very critical because you can't have a significant inequality of income and expect to have support for the type of institutions which have made this country great. Mr. President, I also note the Fed's responsibility for carrying out important supervisory and regulatory authority over the safety and soundness of the Nation's banking and financial system. In the area of consumer protection, the Fed has broad jurisdiction over a host of consumer laws--the Community Reinvestment Act, Truth in Lending Act, Truth in Savings Act, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Homeowners Equity Protection Act. These are major responsibilities of the Fed over and above its monetary policy responsibilities. Finally, as I indicated, I intend to vote for this nominee. I think this nominee is extremely well qualified. He will assume the chairmanship at a time when the economy faces problems that have serious implications for our future economic health and the prospect of a rising standard of living for working Americans. In the current climate, our Nation will be well served by a policy of prudence and independent thought on the part of the Federal Reserve. I am hopeful that Dr. Bernanke will draw upon his distinguished work as an academic economist and his experience as a policymaker at the highest level of the Federal Government to make a prudent and independent policy the hallmark of the Fed in coming years.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield? Will the Senator place me on his resolution?

Mr. SARBANES. I will yield half of the remaining time to Senator Dorgan and the other half to Senator Schumer.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the able Senator from Massachusetts. I was privileged to have worked with Mrs. King on the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday bill for which she pushed so hard and which eventually was passed by the Congress. I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts, she was a champion of decency and human rights and a more just and humane society in her own right, not only as a partner of her husband. We mourn her death and recognize the extraordinary contributions she has made to our Nation.

Mr. SARBANES

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

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, for the second time in 4 months, the Senate is being called upon to carry out one of its most important constitutional responsibilities, which is to give its advice and consent to a nominee to be a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. We have many serious responsibilities in this body, but I must say I think this one ranks at or near the very top of any of the decisions we will be called upon to make. That is because it falls uniquely to the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to expound and interpret the Constitution and the laws passed pursuant to it. The installation of two new Justices within a short time period has the potential to alter fundamentally the constitutional framework that protects the rights and liberties of the people of this Nation. Once again we see the argument being made that the President is entitled to his nominee, and that the Senate's role in the appointment process is limited to confirming the President's choice, barring some serious disqualification with the nominee. In effect, the presumption-- a very heavy presumption--it is argued, is with the nominee and his confirmation. In my view, this is not what the Constitution provides in requiring the Senate's advice and consent to a nominee to the Federal bench, which is, after all, a third, separate, independent branch of our national Government. From a historical perspective, it is worth noting that over the course of our history, roughly one in every four nominations to the Court has not been confirmed by the Senate. There have been 158 nominations to the Supreme Court in the course of the history of the Republic, of which 114 were confirmed. Not all of the others were rejected. Some were rejected on votes taken in this body, some withdrew, and some were never acted upon. But the notion of this heavy presumption runs contrary to historical practice in the Senate. Almost one out of every four--actually a little more than one out of every four--nominations has not been confirmed by the Senate. As Michael Gerhardt, distinguished professor of constitutional law at the University of North Carolina Law School, testified recently before the Judiciary Committee: Neither the plain language of the Appointments Clause nor the structure of the Constitution requires Senators to simply defer to a President's Supreme Court nomination. Let me repeat that quote: Neither the plain language of the Appointments Clause nor the structure of the Constitution requires Senators to simply defer to a President's Supreme Court nomination. In my view, the Senate's duty to advise and consent on nominations is an integral part of the Constitution's system of checks and balances among our institutions of government. A nomination alone does not constitute an entitlement to hold the office. Furthermore, some have said when considering a nominee that we look only to their experience, their qualifications, their character. These are all obviously very important criteria. But, in my view, the nominee's judicial philosophy also must be given very serious consideration. We are facing a decision to place someone on the Supreme Court for life tenure. It could be 20, 30, or 35 years. Judge Alito is in his fifties, so we are talking about someone who is going to shape the interpretation of our Constitution over decades. You view that when you consider a nominee to the Supreme Court. The nominee's judicial philosophy should be given very serious consideration, as well put by former Chief Justice Rehnquist. Writing in 1959, long before he went on the Court, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the Senate should follow the ``practice of thoroughly informing itself on the judicial philosophy of a Supreme Court nominee before voting to confirm him.'' In considering Judge Alito's nomination to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, in my view, the question of his judicial philosophy is not only a legitimate question but indeed an essential question. Inquiring into a nominee's judicial philosophy does not mean discovering how he or she would decide specific future cases. We are always being warned about that, and there is no effort here to predetermine that. Rather, it seeks to ascertain the nominee's fundamental perspectives on the Constitution, how it protects our individual liberties, ensures equal protection of the law, maintains the separation of powers and the checks and balances encompassed within our Constitution. Judge Alito has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit since 1990, during which time he has written hundreds of published opinions, and earlier he served 6 years in the U.S. Department of Justice. So there is much to consider in his record and many lessons to be drawn from it. Of the issues the Court is likely to face, perhaps none is more basic than the proper reach and exercise of executive power. We are particularly focused on this issue now, but it is an issue that has recurred constantly throughout our history as we seek to maintain the careful balance the Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution. They, in fact, established in the Constitution a complex system of democratic governance with three separate, equal branches of the Government. At the center of this system lies not any one of the three branches but rather a delicate balance amongst the three branches. Looking at Judge Alito's record, one sees a clear and constant deference to the executive, which, in my view, would significantly tip that delicate balance with respect to our constitutional system. The Constitution grants the legislative power expressly to Congress. It gives the President power to only approve or veto legislation. The veto power, of course, gives the President very significant authority with respect to legislation. But if a bill becomes the law, with or without the President's approval, it then becomes his or her responsibility as the Chief Executive to see that the law is carried out, to see that the law is properly executed. Judge Alito's record demonstrates he would seek to extend the President's power to allow for modification of law by the executive alone. As one example, while he was an official in the Department of Justice, he was instrumental in advancing a policy of so-called Presidential statements, to create a platform from which the President could seek to alter the underlying purpose of legislation passed by the Congress without the concurrence of the Congress. Such a deference to executive power, I think, is of deep concern, especially as we see on occasion now when Presidents, rather than following constitutional process by seeking legislative change through the Congress, instead refuse to carry out statutes that the Executive finds not to his liking. Furthermore, under our constitutional system, the courts are the ultimate guarantors of individuals' rights and the defenders of our liberties. On this issue, too, Judge Alito has been quite clear and consistent. Professor Goodwin Liu of Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley summed up Judge Alito's work in his testimony to the Judiciary Committee: Throughout his career, with few exceptions, Judge Alito has sided with the police, prosecutors, immigration officials, and other government agents while taking a minimalist approach to recognizing official error and abuse. In an editorial on January 12, the New York Times made the same point in somewhat different terms: [Judge Alito] time and again, as a lawyer and a judge, . . . has taken the side of the big corporations against the `little guy,' supported employers against employees, and routinely rejected the claims of women, racial minorities and the disabled. In a memorandum that he submitted when applying for a political position in the Justice Department in 1985, Judge Alito made a series of very sweeping statements about his understanding of the Constitution. He wrote that he was inspired to apply to law school by his opposition to certain decisions of the Warren Court--the Court headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren--decisions which are now considered bedrock provisions of constitutional law, decisions involving criminal procedure, the Establishment clause of the Constitution, and reapportionment. In that very same memo, he also took strong positions in opposition to Court decisions on affirmative action and the right to choose. When asked about the memo during his confirmation hearings, Judge Alito explained that the 1985 memo reflected his views of the Constitution at that time. He did not, however, explicitly disavow those views, and nothing in the hearing record demonstrates they have changed. In fact, his decisions as a judge on the Third Circuit reflect that these are the views he has continued to hold and to espouse. The Baltimore Sun concluded in an editorial that: Despite Judge Alito's periodic assurances of having an open mind, the disturbing impression from the hearings is that on critical issues such as abortion, civil rights and the limits of executive power, he does not. That is a very perceptive observation with respect to Judge Alito's testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I am not persuaded that Judge Alito recognizes either the critically important role the Supreme Court must play in preserving the constitutional balance of power among the three branches of our Government, that delicate balance to which I made reference earlier which was so much a part of the thinking of that distinguished assemblage which gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to frame our Constitution. I have this concern about his view of the role the Court must play in preserving the constitutional balance of power among the three branches of Government and whether he recognizes the role of the Court as the ultimate guarantor of every individual's constitutional rights and liberties. For the ordinary citizens all across our country, the rulings of the Supreme Court can be of immense importance in terms of providing for their rights and liberties. Because I am not persuaded in this regard about the appropriateness of Judge Alito's nomination, when the time comes to vote, I will vote against his nomination to become an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. This reconciliation process really is a package, in which you have to consider not only the spending cuts but the tax cuts they are pushing through, as well as the increase in the debt. Am I correct that this reconciliation package includes raising the debt limit by some $800 billion?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. That was in March of 2001. At that time, wasn't the Federal budget running a surplus?

Mr. SARBANES. So at the time we were running this surplus--and let me just note, it had taken a lot of work to get out of an earlier deficit into surplus--and there was some concern expressed that the excessive tax cuts the President was proposing would throw us into a budget deficit and we would lose that surplus, the President told us in no uncertain terms that there was no reason to fear budget deficits; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SARBANES. So the previous year the President was saying there would be no deficit, and a year later, in the face of what obviously would be a deficit, he said, well, it will be a small and short-term deficit.

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. In 4 years, after the President said there would be no deficits, we have incurred deficits of, according to my quick calculation, over $1.2 trillion; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?