Jeff Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 23, which largely reflects the agreement on patent-reform legislation that Senator Leahy and I announced last year. The Judiciary Committee has been working hard on landmark patent reform legislation for the past 7 years, and has finally reached a broad, bipartisan agreement. This bill includes important reforms that will improve the functioning of the Patent and Trademark Office and will allow the office to reduce its backlog of pending applications. The bill also makes the long-overdue transition to a first-to-file system, a change that will help ensure U.S. inventors receive patents that will also be entitled to priority in foreign countries. This bill has the support of a broad range of industries and trade associations, across the economic spectrum, as well as the support of universities, patent professional organizations, independent entrepreneurs and labor unions. The PTO and the Commerce Department also strongly support this legislation. While not all interests are satisfied, I think it is fair to say that the present agreement has produced a near consensus on this issue, and has resulted in the broadest possible support for this reform. The most important change made by this bill is its adoption of a first-to-file patent system. Under current U.S. law, when two different people come up with the same invention, priority is given to the person who can prove that he first conceived of the invention and was able to make it work. Under the first-to-file system, by contrast, priority is given to the first person who not only conceived of the invention and was able to make it work, but who also filed a disclosure with the PTO explaining the invention and how to make it work. The first-to-file system has several important advantages over the current system. First, it is easy to verify when an inventor filed a disclosure statement with the PTO. By contrast, under the current system, invention priority dates are determined by examining the inventor's notebooks and other records, all of which must have been contemporaneously validated by a third party. The first-to-file system not only dispenses with expensive discovery into ``what did the inventor know and when did he know it,'' it also allows the public to easily determine an invention's priority date--and whether a patent for the invention is valid in light of the prior art. Additionally, the first-to-file system, combined with the use of provisional applications for patents, also provides an inexpensive and secure way for small inventors to protect their patent application while discussing the invention with possible investors and other third parties. Other reforms included in the bill will improve the quality of U.S. patents over the long term. The bill creates a new post-grant review of patents, which can be sought within the first 9 months after the patent is issued and used to raise any challenge to the patent. This will allow invalid patents that were mistakenly issued by the PTO to be fixed early in their life, before they disrupt an entire industry or result in expensive litigation. The bill also allows third parties to submit prior art relevant to a patent application before the patent is issued. This will help PTO determine if the invention is already in the public domain and should not be patented. This provision will allow the public to help the PTO correct its mistakes, and ensure that no patent rights are granted for inventions already available to the public. The bill also makes structural reforms to post-grant review that were sought by the PTO. It allows inter partes reexamination to be run as an adjudicative system, and elevates the threshold for starting post-grant proceedings. The PTO has insisted that a higher threshold is critical to its ability to administer these proceedings. By raising the threshold for starting an inter partes review to a showing of a ``reasonable likelihood'' that a patent is invalid, the bill will allow the PTO to avoid accepting challenges that were unlikely to win in any event. The bill also includes many protections that were long sought by inventors and patent owners. It preserves estoppel against relitigating in court those issues that an inter partes challenger reasonably could have raised in his administrative challenge. It imposes time limits on starting an inter partes or post-grant review when litigation is pending. And it imposes a one-year time limit on the duration of these proceedings. All of these reforms will help to ensure that post-grant review operates fairly and is not used for purposes of harassment or delay. I commend the members of the Judiciary Committee for the work they have put into this bill and I urge my colleagues to support passage.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to share some remarks about the budget. I note how pleased I have been to work in this past year with the Presiding Officer on some legislation that I think, had we had just a couple more votes, we would have made progress and done something worthwhile to help ensure that our spending does not range above our budget, as too often has been the case in our country. The fact is the American people, by large numbers from polling data, believe we are on the wrong track, and the intelligentsia, the witnesses we have had before the Budget Committee--I am ranking member of that committee--keep telling us we are on an unsustainable path. Witnesses called by the Democrats or Republicans, the professional CBO witnesses from all walks of intellectual and business life, say we are on an unsustainable debt path. They are not kidding. They meant that, and the words mean something. We cannot continue what we are doing. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said: I believe that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. If we as a country do not address our fiscal imbalances in the near-term, our national power will erode and the costs to our ability to maintain and sustain influence could be great. He said if we do not address it in the near term--not just in the long term, in the near term. Recently, on February 17, Secretary Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, appeared before the Budget Committee, and we went over the President's budget. He was, I will have to say, more candid than was OMB Director Jack Lew. I was asking him about the situation we are in and the effect of the budget that allows the debt to double in the next 10 years--causes the debt to do so. He said, ``It is an excessively high interest burden.'' I was asking about the fact that the money we borrow, the debt we assume we have to pay interest on. It is unsustainable . . . with the President's plan, even if the Congress were to enact it, and even if Congress were to hold to it and reduce those deficits as a percentage of GDP over the next 5 years, we would still be left with a very large interest burden and unsustainable obligations over time. It is pretty clear we are on an unsustainable path, and it is pretty clear the American people are exactly correct--we are on the wrong track. We are headed the wrong way. We need to get off of that. So what is it that we have been presented with? We are presented with a plan. We call it a budget, but it is really the administration's plan for what we are going to collect and spend over the next 10 years. They can plan to raise taxes, they can plan to cut spending, they can plan to increase spending and borrow more money. They can plan. That is their plan. So we got a plan 2 weeks ago. In that, the President told us this: What my budget does is put forward some tough choices, some significant spending cuts, so that by the middle of this decade our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will not be adding more to the national debt. That is a pretty clear statement, right? It is actually a breathtaking statement to me because I know how hard it is to do that, but he said it flatly and plainly: Our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will not be adding more to the national debt. Jake Tapper, the ABC reporter, at a White House press briefing a couple of weeks ago asked Mr. Carney, the press flack, about this dramatic statement. He asked him if he thought ``we will not be adding to the national debt'' is a statement that will withstand scrutiny. ``Mr. Carney: Absolutely.'' I don't know what world people are living in. Are we communicating in English or some other language? This budget that is presented to us comes nowhere close to living within our means, matching expenditures and revenues, and not adding more to the debt. Look at this chart. These are the President's numbers, the numbers that have been put out here, and this is what we have been asked to pass. It is before the Budget Committee. I wish it were not so, what we have. I know it is not easy to offer these numbers. I know Senator McCaskill knows that. She has looked at that. But I think we have to begin to alter them a lot. Look, in 2010 our total debt, the gross debt of the United States, is $13.5 trillion. In 10 years, under the President's budget--these are numbers in his budget document that he submitted to us--it goes to $26.3 trillion. Not projecting a war, not projecting another recession, both of which, I guess, could occur during that time. We are living on the absolute edge--actually, almost over the edge, what we are doing and spending. It is $13 trillion in new debt. Let me make this point. Not 1 year between now and 2021, the 10th year, does the annual deficit fall below $600 billion. This is an unbelievable number. President Bush was hammered when he had a $450 billion budget, his highest, and he was correctly criticized for that. The lowest that is projected over 10 years is $26.3 trillion. Last year's budget deficit was $1.3 trillion. The deficit we expect this year is going to be--on September 30, when September 30 rolls around, the estimates are that the total annual deficit this year will be $1.6 trillion, the highest we have ever had in the history of the Republic. Nothing was ever seen like it. It does project down some. All the projections are showing it will show some drop down, but they are heading back up in these outyears of 2019, 2020, 2021. The budget deficits are going up there. So this is not a sustainable budget. It is not a sustainable path for us to be on as a nation. We cannot continue on this path. It is a great threat to us. This week, Chairman Conrad, the very able Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, knowledgeable and fair, has been having hearings. We have had the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of Transportation testify to us about their portion of this overall budget, this budget that would double the debt in 10 years. What do you think Education is asking for? What are they asking for? Think about, back in your States, what you have been reading about cities' school systems and county school systems in States cutting budgets, having to do with less, reducing costs, reducing teachers-- reducing costs in any way they can. They have been doing a lot of things they have had to do. Some of them are probably going to make that system stronger in the future, but they are not easy. You would rather not have to make tough choices, but they are doing it all over America. Our U.S. Department of Education, however, demands an 11-percent increase this year, after two substantial increases the previous 2 years. I think it is a 38-percent increase in 3 years for the Department of Education. This cannot be contained? We cannot have level funding for the Department of Education? We have to have an increase of 11 percent on, what, 2 percent inflation? Five times the inflation rate after 2 previous years? This is living within our means when we are going to have, next year, a deficit of over $1 trillion? Energy came in yesterday, Dr. Chu. He wants a 9.5-percent increase in spending. Basically, all I can see that the Department of Energy does is take money, try to mandate programs to require people to use more expensive energy, and participate, I guess with the Interior Department, in locking up energy sources in the United States that we ought to be unlocking, creating jobs and prosperity and wealth for America. They need to get their act together. The price of gasoline is going up. I traveled in my State last week. I finished a talk, and a hand would go up about gasoline prices. You know, you learn something when you are out traveling around. This is on people's minds, and they do not think it is going to stop at $3.40. Senator Murkowski, the former chairman of the Energy Committee, now ranking on that committee, knows more than I. Transportation today, Secretary LaHood--you have to like Secretary LaHood. He is a likable man. He believes in roads and transportation. Hold your hat. Do you know how much the transportation is going to increase this year if the President's budget is approved? It is 62 percent. I am flabbergasted. Sixty-two percent? Is there a State in America that is not showing hardly any increase in their budgets, and we are having a 62-percent increase? No, it is an investment in the future--investment, investment, investment. Give me a break. It is spending, spending, spending and debt, debt, debt, debt. It is a pretty serious problem we are dealing with. I think the Education Department needs to be doing some different things instead of just spending money. They need to figure out how children learn. We have to quit defining our commitment to education on how much money we throw at the problem, how many new buildings we build. We have to ask are children actually improving? Are they learning better? And too often that is not the case. Canada, our neighbor to the north, spends $7,500 per year, per pupil. We spend $11,500, and they get better results. Is that an investment? It is not a good investment if we are spending more and getting substantially less. We need the Secretary of Education to be figuring out how to help education get better, not see how much more money we can spend, because we do not have the money. This year we will spend $3.5 trillion. We will bring in, in income to the United States, $2.2 trillion. That is almost unbelievable, but it is an absolute fact. It is undisputed-- $3.5 trillion we spend, we bring in $2.2 trillion, and 40 cents of every dollar that is spent this year is borrowed. That is why the experts tell us we have a potential debt crisis. Moody's, the bond rating agency, in December wrote a letter warning that they could downgrade our debt within the next 2 years if we do not get off this unsustainable path. So we need Education to help get better education, not see how much more money they can spend. We need Energy to help produce energy. They are the Energy Department. We need Transportation to figure out how to use their money wisely. All of this is about the economic health and growth and future of America. The fact is, according to the great study by Rogoff and Reinhart--which Secretary of Treasury Geithner said he agreed with-- that study has been completed. They advised their main finding is that across both advanced countries and emerging markets, high debt-to-GDP levels, 90 percent or above, are associated with notably lower growth outcomes. Seldom do countries simply grow their way out of deep debt burdens. Well, their study says that it is, on average, 1 percent less growth. Well, if we are looking for 3 percent growth this year and we get 2, that makes a lot of difference. Three percent would be good growth. If we get 2 percent, we are now going to get 1 because we are being dragged down by our debt. In addition, Mr. Geithner said this to us. Not only does he agree it reduces growth, he says it puts us in a position where we could more readily have a debt crisis. If something happened around the world, another debt crisis could spread here and we could slip back into a recession. That is why we have to do this, to create a healthy, growing economy and get this debt burden off us, to create jobs, empower the private sector. By the way, what percent of GDP are we? We are 94 now and are projected to be 100 percent of GDP by September 30 this year. Our gross debt will be 100 percent of GDP by September 30 this year. That puts us way into the danger zone. It is unacceptable. What do we have from the President's budget? A budget that increases spending every year, that has its lowest annual deficit $600 billion, which I think $600 billion would be the lowest deficit--the highest deficit ever achieved prior to President Obama becoming President. It will double the debt in 10 years, and interest on our debt will go from under $200 billion last year--hold your hats--to $844 billion in the 10th year. We will be paying interest this year, $844 billion. How much is that? People say they do not know. What does that mean? Well, the Federal highway budget this year, the baseline budget, was 40, education, I think, is 60. You see, we are going to $800 billion in interest for which we get nothing, and much of that is sent to people around the world, places such as China and Saudi Arabia, who are buying our bonds and we are having to pay them interest. Not good. So we are on the wrong path. It is true, we have to change. I appreciate the House of Representatives, which is going to send us a continuing resolution that begins to take some steps toward reducing the dangerous path we are on. That is just a first step. We have to do a lot more things. If we work together, we can do them. But we are going to have an effort in which all of us join together, first in recognition that we are facing a grave threat to our national security, and, second, a grave threat to our economy but one we can meet. I have looked at the numbers. I know it is not going to be easy. But if we take a tougher path, the harder path, maybe the path less traveled, it is the path to prosperity and to a rebound in American strength and vitality. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have had sort of a dustup, I guess you could say, in the Budget Committee yesterday with Mr. Lew from the Office of Management and Budget and a very likable individual, but we had a serious disagreement, a fundamental matter that I do not think can be brushed over and needs to be confronted and settled. There is only one way to settle it, I believe; that is, for Mr. Lew and the President to cease saying their budget does not add to the debt and somehow changes the trajectory on which we are going. Mr. Lew, on a Sunday morning program, said: ``Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore. . . . '' ``Our budget will get us to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we're not adding to the debt anymore; we are spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing down our national debt.'' That is my goal. I believe that is achievable. But it is clear this budget does not do that. Troubling, additionally, was the President, in his radio address Saturday, said the same thing. Then, again yesterday, while we were having this discussion, presumably at a similar time, the President said this: ``What my budget does is to put forward some tough choices, some significant spending cuts so that by the middle of this decade [2015] our annual spending will match our annual revenues. . . . '' Our annual spending will match our annual revenues. We will not be adding more to the national debt. That is an unequivocal statement. No matter what, it can have only one meaning to American citizens who hear it, that his budget calls for a situation in which our annual spending will match our annual revenues and we will not be adding to the national debt. Those of us who have been wrestling with the budget know how hard it is. I believe we can achieve that in 10 years, but it is very hard. I have to admit it. I wish it were not. The Presiding Officer is on the Budget Committee and he knows how hard that would be. It would be a heroic effort. I think we can do it. I think the American people are ready to do it. But it is not easy. The President says that is what we are going to do and that is his plan. But, sadly, it is not correct. I asked Mr. Lew, was he not concerned and was not this misleading to the American people who heard it. He refused to say his statement was misleading. What does the budget do? These are the numbers in his budget, the document they presented to us, written by the White House, the President's budget he is required by law to submit to Congress. This is what happens to the debt. The quote up there again is: ``We will not be adding more to the national debt.'' We add more under his plan, to the national debt, every single year. The numbers are stunning in size. They are consistent and, unfortunately, in the outer years of his 10-year budget, his numbers show the annual debt--annual deficit increasing, not going down. So this is what it amounts to in terms of total debt. His plan, by his own budget that they submitted to us, would add, without dispute, $13 trillion in new debt, doubling it to $26 trillion. It started out at $13 trillion; in 10 years, it doubles to $26 trillion. How can this possibly be a position in which you will not be adding more to the debt? What world are we living in? What kind of fantastical accounting situation can occur that we can make such a statement as that? I am going to ask my colleagues in the Senate, any single one of them who can defend this statement, I would like them to come down here and do so. Otherwise we need to call on the President to be honest with the American people. We have a serious debt crisis. To waltz out there in a press conference yesterday, to send out to speak on his radio program Saturday or to have his Budget Director on Sunday, and even at our committee hearing yesterday, insist that somehow they are not adding to the debt is not a way to begin a dialog about how to confront the serious problems this country has. I have to say that. I do not think it is a little bitty matter. I don't think it is subject to gentlemen's disagreement. I don't think it is subject to anything other than black and white, yes and no. Is that an accurate statement or not? It is not true. The debt is added to every year. In fact, President Bush was criticized for his deficits--and I think rightly so. The highest deficit he ever had was $450, $460 billion. The lowest deficit in the 10 years, by the President's own budget document he sent to us, is over $600 billion--the lowest. It averages $720 billion a year in added debt. This is why we are on a dangerous course. The essence of what we are talking about is can we get off this wrong road? Can we get on the road to prosperity? Can we get on the road to progress that gets us out of the debt disaster area we are headed toward? Let me read a couple things because this is the real test of the budget. We can argue over the finer details. But the question is, Can we continue at the rate we are going? What I would say about the budget is that these numbers, this $13 trillion added debt, is what was being predicted before. According to the President, it would have been $14 trillion. He has reduced it to $13 trillion, which is not enough change, if it were to happen. But when the Congressional Budget Office independently scores the President's budget, it is going to show he doesn't have a $1.1 trillion reduction in spending--probably none. There is probably no reduction in the debt. What I am saying is, this budget keeps us on the course we were on. I do not think that can be disputed. It does not alter the basic debt totals each year from what has been projected, and those are the numbers, the debt totals, that are unsustainable. For example, in 2009, President Obama called the current deficit spending, on this basic trend, unsustainable--himself--and warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the United States continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries. This is Bloomberg: ``We can't keep on just borrowing from China,'' Obama said at a town-hall meeting at Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. ``We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's future. . . .'' That is correct. Mr. Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, warned in June of last year that ``the federal budget appears to be on an unsustainable path.'' Mr. Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, in February--actually February 15--a couple days ago on ABC, said this--this is what the Secretary of Treasury said, Mr. Obama's Secretary: Our deficits are too high. They are unsustainable, and left unaddressed, these deficits will hurt economic growth and make us weaker as a nation. . . . We have to restore fiscal responsibility and go back to living within our means. Peter Orszag, who was President Obama's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said that the CBO report--he said this in June of last summer: . . . concludes that we are on an unsustainable fiscal course. About this, there is no ambiguity. We are on an ``unsustainable fiscal course,'' there is no doubt about it, said Mr. Orszag last summer. What I would say to you is, the President's budget does not change that direction and we have to change it. We have to be honest with the American people that we are not changing it, that the President's plan is his plan for the future. He can change the numbers any way he wants to. He can change the trajectory we are on. It is a voluntary thing. The numbers he put forth are his numbers, and they are a call for our country to follow his plan. That is not an acceptable plan. It is not an acceptable plan, and we have to change it. Briefly, I will add this. The warnings that are out there--Alan Greenspan, our former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, said in December that it is a little better than 50-50, but not much, that we won't have a debt crisis in this country in 2 to 3 years. Moody's, the organization most famous for rating government debt and private company debt--you know, AAA is the highest rating--Moody's, in December, sent a warning letter that, unless the United States changes its trajectory of debt, our debt could be downgraded from AAA in less than 2 years. The International Monetary Fund has said we have to reduce our structural deficit more than Greece. They have to go to a 9-percent improvement; we have to go to a 12-percent improvement. Only Japan, says the International Monetary Fund, is worse off than we are and has to take stronger action. So this budget is no action at all. It is no alteration of the trajectory. It is unacceptable. As Congressman Ryan said, it is debt on arrival. We cannot pass this budget. It is unthinkable that we would. The American people are ready for change. They are supporting Governors and mayors around the country who are making tough choices, bringing their States and cities up to speed and being more effective. They are doing that. These cities are not ceasing to exist. We increased discretionary spending, nondefense discretionary spending, in the last 2 years under President Obama's leadership and the Democratic majority in both Houses, 24 percent--12 percent a year, on average. Well, at a 7-percent-a-year increase, the total budget doubled in 10 years. I guess at 12 percent it will probably double in 6 or 7 years. This is the trend we are on. We have to come off of that. We are going to have to reduce those numbers because we do not have the money. But I will tell you, this economy has vibrancy. It is trying to come out of this recession. If we create some stability and permanence in our rules, eliminate unnecessary regulations, allow our energy prices to be competitive and create more American energy and all of the things that make sense to bring down costs and increase productivity, bring this debt under control, we will be surprised how strong we can bounce back. But this is not the path to do it. This is the unsustainable path that can lead to danger. The closer we get to it, the more dangerous we are. So I believe it is time to change course. Where we are going to go, I just cannot say. I am rather stunned that the President's budget--I did not expect a very strong budget, but I expected one that would make a lot more progress than this. So I guess we are all befuddled right now what our choices will be. All of us have to work at it, though, because the future of our country is at stake. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of Senator Nelson's amendment preventing the establishment of an extra advisory committee for NASA. It is ironic that in his recent State of the Union Address, President Obama spoke of needing a ``sputnik'' moment to push America forward while the administration is supporting actions that complicate and weaken NASA and outsource its core capabilities. Why should we transfer the responsibility for deciding how to affect aeronautics research from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the responsible agency? NASA provides the Nation's fundamental aeronautics research capability and any further dilution of its capabilities will negatively impact not only our research and development abilities but America's future space missions. Furthermore, the advisory committee's function would directly and adversely affect the separate authorization of appropriations, Public Law 109-155, for NASA, wherein the Agency's lead role in civil aeronautics research was reaffirmed--Sec. 411. This is why I voted in favor of Senator Nelson's amendment, which passed by a vote of 96 to 1. It is good that the formation of this committee has been struck by the Nelson amendment. The proposal has not been fully considered. It is unwise and goes against what Congress has already established. I strongly believe it is of critical importance for the United States to maintain our competitive edge in human space exploration and civil aeronautics research. We should not abandon our position as an international leader in human space exploration. Creating another bureaucracy, blurring lines of responsibility and complicating decisionmaking by the responsible agency, NASA, will not be a step forward.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to speak today about the noble service of a great American from the State of Alabama, Mr. James Boyd. Mr. Boyd serves the city of Anniston as a police officer and has served as a civilian adviser to the Afghani Police Force in Khost and Kabul, Afghanistan, from November of 2009 to November of 2010. He is currently featured in the laudable project ``100 Faces of the War Experience.'' This exhibition displays portraits and brief stories of those who have served in the multitude of possible ways in the theatres of war. The portraits are not for sale and not done at any cost to the participants. Mr. Boyd's story is as follows: January 7th was the day of my war experience. I was embedded with the U.S. military in Afghanistan, advising the Afghan border police. We returned to our combat outpost at 3:20 PM after a supply mission. Right away I noticed that the local border police we lived with were all but gone and my police instinct immediately told me something was wrong. My partner and I were talking to the Lieutenant and Sergeant outside our building and decided to change into cold weather gear for the night. Just as it got dark, we started receiving heavy enemy gunfire; it was relentless and was all at head level. I could hear the Sergeant yelling, ``Incoming!'' A suicide bomber drove a 4,000 lb vehicle- borne improvised explosive device into our compound wall injuring 13 U.S. soldiers. I ran to those who were calling for help and found the Sergeant I had been speaking with moments before; he was severely injured and later died. My partner and I ran back-and-forth across the compound under heavy gunfire to get medical bags and stretchers, and to give combat aid. More than a dozen Taliban tried to breach our compound throughout the attack but the team held them back. The rush of emotions throughout was unbelievable--the highest of highs and lowest of lows. The carnage of war is horrendous. The valor of warriors is inspiring. We should all be grateful to the members of our military who defend our enduring freedom and I am honored to support them in their mission. I thank Mr. Boyd and his family for their honorable contributions toward the goals of our great Nation. I wish him and his family only the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, President Obama talked with the chamber of commerce yesterday. I think that was a good step, but talk and rhetoric are not policy and not action. It is reported that he received applause from two different lines, and he got that in a 35-minute address, which is a bit unusual. It does appear the President understands he has a serious problem with the job-creating community and is willing to at least meet with people. But the problem really is policy and action. I am disappointed he has not gone further to deal, in a realistic way, with the job problems this Nation has. He talked about lowering corporate taxes but not reducing the burden of government borne by these companies. In other words, he talked about lowering the rate through eliminating loopholes, and some of the loopholes, I am sure, are not justified. Some of them may be very effective in helping us to be competitive and create growth, not just eliminating those and making it appear that the corporate tax burden has been reduced. I talked to the chamber of commerce and businesspeople, and they tell me we are in a competitive world environment, and businesses decide where to make products and hire workers based on the cost of doing business in that area. A CEO in North America, for an international company in my home State, told me: We thought we were going to add 200 jobs--at an Alabama plant that he oversees to make a chemical product. But his headquarter company in Europe said: No, after considering taxes, we are not going to build that plant in Alabama. It is going to be in a foreign country. In other words, they had won the competition on costs. Another country with lower tax rates on a corporation had won the bid. The idea that you can have a high tax rate is not good. We have the highest tax rate in the developed world--as soon as Japan brings theirs down, which they are planning to do, then we will be the highest corporate tax country in the world. This makes us less competitive, and it creates fewer jobs. Simply to eliminate loopholes and bring it down from 35 to the high twenties, as apparently is being discussed, does not reduce the burden of taxes on corporations. Many of our corporations are going to have a significant increase in their tax rates, and they will be less able to hire workers. This is a major issue that I think we have to confront. It is a competitiveness issue. The President continued to talk, as he did in the State of the Union, about more investment spending. We don't have the money to do more spending. I am disappointed that he has not begun to realize that the day is over that we can just waltz in with a lot of good ideas for new spending programs. He continued to talk about spending and the role of democracy in this region and key industries at a time when we need to streamline regulations that are killing jobs in America. He did not call for a vigorous and realistic plan to reduce spending. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I appreciate the President beginning to enter into a dialog with the folks who create jobs. I am not suggesting that we need to reduce corporate rates to be nice to corporations. I do not have any grief to bear to try to make it somehow easier for corporate executives to make big amounts of money. What I do understand is if we overtax American corporations, they will move other places. Canada is looking to reduce its corporate tax rate to 16 percent. If we are at 35 percent and Canada goes to 16, will that not be a factor in us losing jobs in competition with Canada? We have to defend our interests. I see the distinguished majority leader. I know he is busy. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the news broke this morning concerning the jobs report for January. The numbers came in that we only added 36,000 new jobs to the U.S. economy. The Wall Street Journal lead is, ``Economy Adds Few Jobs.'' It is a difficult matter. Some say maybe the weather had something to do with it. The Washington Post report noted that job creation was far less than economists had predicted. Mr. President, 36,000 might sound pretty good, at least not bad; but in truth it is not good. Mr. Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before our Budget Committee--of which the Presiding Officer, Senator Begich, is a member--that our economy needs to produce about 150,000 jobs a month--it needs to add that many--to stay even. We need to be adding about 250,000 a month to begin to reduce unemployment in a significant way. The numbers were mixed. Some people saw some good news in the report. The Household Survey showed a drop in unemployment, which was not a bad. But I think the low number of actual jobs created was pretty troubling. I will say a few things I believe are important and need to be understood. This Congress passed a stimulus package that was supposed to keep unemployment from going above 8 percent. It went to 9.6. It has dropped some since then, but it is still extraordinarily high. We passed that package, and it did not stop unemployment from rising. It was based on the Keynesian concept of government borrowing money to spend into the economy on the theory that government can create jobs. Not long before the vote, Gary Becker, the Nobel Prize-winning economist from the University of Chicago, wrote an op-ed. In it he said he examined the proposal and that it was far too ineffective in creating jobs and economic growth. He warned that it would not be effective. He warned that the growth factor was below 1. It should be above 1. He said maybe .7, and that this, in his opinion, was not a good investment of $800 billion. Every penny of it was borrowed. We did not have that money. We decided to borrow the money in an attempt to stimulate the economy. I know many heard it said, and the President repeated, that this was a new infrastructure program; that we were going to fix our crumbling infrastructure. We were going to create American jobs and make our highways and bridges safer and better. That was an inaccurate statement. It became clear before the bill passed--I remember pointing it out, as did others--that only 5 percent of the $800 billion went to bridges and highways--5 percent. This was not a bridge project. It expanded entitlements and bailed out states. It created no real growth in productivity. It has not done what it was advertised to do. I hate to say ``I told you so,'' but when you take $800 billion of borrowed money and let it compound at 4 percent, you create a liability that will be on our books for the indefinite future, maybe forever-- that we will be forced to pay about $32 billion a year in interest. Every year now when we do our budget, we have to figure that first we have to pay $32 billion for the interest on that money we borrowed that was supposed to stimulate the economy, that did not stimulate the economy. Mr. President, this amount we spend on the interest cost is roughly equivalent to what we spend on highways annually. Rather than paying interest on a bill that failed to increase economic growth, we could have doubled the Federal highway budget. It was, as Bill Gross, the guru behind the PIMCO bond fund--one the largest bond funds in the world--said: Emphasis in America and some other nations has been on consumption, not effectively enough on growth, which is sort of what Professor Becker said and Federal Reserve Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, said recently--that there are going to be several years before we get to a normal job growth situation, a normal unemployment rate in our country. Even though the unemployment rate seems to have dropped, it is important to note that a number of the people dropping off the unemployment rolls are dropping off because they have given up looking for work. They have gotten discouraged and they are no longer going down to the unemployment office registering and looking for work. That is not good. A healthy, vibrant, growing economy attracts more people into the workforce. There was an article in Baron's financial magazine recently that noted that as of December, the number of hours being worked by employees had not gone up. Normally if unemployment goes down and businesses hire more workers, they will show average hours worked going up. It was in the low thirties, and it was not going up. They said maybe that is a signal that some may be too optimistic. They also noted that wages were basically flat, just a minor increase in wages. Whereas, the price of gasoline, which we are so thankful Alaska is producing for us, and food are going up. Cotton prices, soybean prices, corn prices are at record levels. This will translate into rising costs. If wages are flat and the number of people working is flat and costs are rising, then this is not good for the economy. If government cannot borrow money and create real employment of a sustained nature, what should government do? Recently, at a Baron's roundtable, Mr. Gross said loose monetary and fiscal policy has had some benefit, but it is a sugar high. It will not last. We cannot keep it up. Do we not all know that this is a sugar high that we cannot continue? What can we do? Are there things we can do? Is it hopeless? Should we do nothing? I do not think so. I think there are a number of things that I will mention that I absolutely believe we can do that will create jobs for people who are hurting this very moment, who are unemployed. It could help them have a new and better life, and it would not cost the U.S. Treasury anything. I believe these actions are significant. First, we need to take actions that have the tendency to create mechanisms that will bring down energy costs. Energy is a hidden tax--a hidden tax. Rising energy costs are a tax on your current income. You get nothing more for it. You get the same number of gallons, the same assets you got before, but you just have to pay more for it. You don't have the same amount of money for your family, your rent, your automobile payment; you get less money to use toward that. We need to produce more of it at home for two reasons: One, it helps contain the growing cost of fuel, which is a secret thief of the American citizen's income, and two, it creates American jobs. Wouldn't we rather have thousands more jobs in Alabama producing oil offshore or in Alaska, producing oil in Alaska, rather than sending our money to Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and creating jobs there? It would be an additional supply source that helps bring down the cost, and it would create American jobs. Plus, it would keep that American wealth at home. It would keep that wealth at home. Sixty percent of the oil we are using to make the gasoline that goes into our automobiles is imported. That wealth is going abroad. That is not good. So we need to take actions that will produce American energy at the lowest possible cost. Yes, it needs to be safely produced. We saw the accident on the gulf coast. I have been on those beaches, and thank goodness they are cleaned up now, but it was a mess, and everybody was worried. It hammered our gulf coast tourism industry and our fishing industry for months, although fishing is coming back, and I think our tourism will be back. But it was an unnecessary disaster, and it can be prevented, and steps have already been taken to ensure it will not happen again. We can do that. I like the Boone Pickens plan. We have discovered how to drill down into the ground and then turn that drill bit horizontally and go through shale rock to produce huge amounts of natural gas. Natural gas burns about 40 percent cleaner than gasoline or diesel fuel. It can produce energy that can even be used for vehicles. So that is all American. It is energy produced here in America. And we will have to have Americans to drill the wells, to move the natural gas, to process it and do all the things that go into that instead of importing oil from Venezuela. This makes sense. This is not a theoretical vision for an energy program. The Energy Department has now projected that we have maybe 200 years of natural gas--twice what we projected just a few years ago because of the new, improved way to drill. We should be doing more of that to create American jobs. It would provide a new energy source that hasn't been there before that could be used for electricity. And natural gas prices are low--pretty surprisingly low, actually--compared to other sources of energy, and we ought to use more of it. We can use it in vehicles, too, particularly larger trucks, city buses, and vehicles like that. It would take an infrastructure capability to be able to travel around the country and be able to get it to our truckers, but the city buses, the garbage trucks, and things such as that can be done all over America. That would reduce our imports, create jobs here, and create wealth in America without sending it abroad. I know the President has said--and we are going to have to confront this and talk about it--that we are going to create green jobs by developing the solar and biofuels industries. But, really, it hasn't gone nearly as well in the United States as we had hoped. One big plant that had millions of dollars--in Massachusetts--put into it has gone bankrupt. China is undercutting prices and is producing things that were supposed to be produced by Americans. So it is not going so well, frankly. I have to give this cautionary tale. No nation in the world is committed more to green jobs and this idea that you can create jobs in the energy sector by doing more windmills, solar and biofuels than Spain. And Spain has had a terrible time. It has the highest unemployment rate in Europe. They drove up the price of their energy, and it adversely impacted the whole economy of Spain. They created some jobs in some of these new programs, but one study said they lost I think 2\1/2\ jobs for every 1 job that was created. Now, I wish this weren't so. I wish we could have a plan to invest in solar panels or corn ethanol, and it would create lots of jobs and create energy at a competitive cost. But it produces these energy sources at much higher cost, and someone has to pay for them. When businesses pay more for energy, they can't hire as many people, they can't make widgets in Alabama and sell them abroad if their energy prices go up as a result of these policies. You can't do it. There is no free lunch here. So I think we need to look at what happened in Spain. I met with a group of pulp and paper workers--union members-- yesterday. I knew a couple of them from the past at pulp and paper mills around where I grew up in rural Alabama. They are worried about Environmental Protection Agency regulations. There are a lot of these regulations, but the one that is hammering the timber industry and the pulp and paper industry is the boiler MACT proposal. They convert waste to wood product at these paper mills. They burn it and create steam and energy, which reduces their demand on the grid from the power companies that are creating energy through coal and natural gas. So they are using a renewable source, but they are being required to expend millions of dollars for new boilers. I was at a sawmill in Alabama, in a rural area--good people--that exports half of what they produce. They produce a high quality of lumber for export, and they say this boiler MACT regulation will hammer them so hard, they may not be able to continue in business. And what would that do? All the people who go out in the woods and harvest timber, those who bring it in, those who work at the mill to saw it and plane it and produce it will be out of work. There would be less competition within the United States for wood products and less production of it, so the price might go up for the consumers. So this is not a good plan. This regulation went too far. It has to be repealed. But there are a lot of regulations like that driving up costs. They could be eliminated at no cost to the government. It would reduce the number of bureaucrats who are out there enforcing them and allow industries to be more productive. There are lots of them out there. And a regulation that gets passed--sometimes that regulation might be beneficial to a narrow sector, but often it gets applied to 10 times or 100 times as many companies and businesses than is necessary or beneficial, and it adds extra cost, reducing their productivity for no good benefit whatsoever. All wasteful regulations need to be eliminated. I think the President has finally understood that. He has made some statement about it, but we need to be sure that it happens and it happens quickly because we have people unemployed today as a direct result of excessive regulation. A lot of people may not realize that our corporate taxes--once Japan reduces theirs, as they plan to do--will be the highest corporate tax of any developed nation in the world. This is not a healthy place to be. You can learn a lot in an airport. A businessman started talking to me about this, and we got on the plane together. I had an open seat, and so I asked him to sit by me. He was very impressive--a CEO for a North American division of an international corporation. They were going to produce a product in that company that would be sold in the United States and worldwide that would be energy efficient--a chemical product they wanted to produce. It would mean about 200 employees. This is the story he told me, and he was so frustrated about it. Now, remember, this is a very intelligent, sophisticated man. He said they had the best price. These big companies, if they are going to make a new product, they ask every plant in their system who can build it the best, the cheapest, and the one that wins the competition gets the process. Well, he had won the competition--200 new jobs to the Alabama plant--until he got a call from the European headquarters. They said: You haven't considered the taxes. Well, what about that? You have to consider taxes. That is a cost of doing business. You have to recalculate it and do the taxes. And when they did, the United States lost. So this process is going to be built in another country that has lower taxes. The idea that you can raise taxes on corporations and not have an impact on the competitiveness of America is utterly false. We just have to take a minute or two to think about it. Of course, that is damaging to our competitiveness, and we compete worldwide, not just within the United States. But producers can move to Mexico and they can move to Canada. By the way, our corporate tax rate is 35 percent. Canada has already reduced theirs to the low twenties, and they are talking about going to 16\1/2\ percent. My colleague from Alaska understands that his state's firms can choose between building a plant in Alaska or Canada. And when they add up the numbers and you have to pay substantially more tax in the United States, that could be the tipping point to make the difference in where that plant is built. So it is not that we are trying to help corporations by proposing that taxes be reduced; it is that we are becoming uncompetitive. Ireland has had a financial crisis. Their banking system reached a real crisis. But a number of years ago, they reduced their corporate tax rate to the lowest in Europe and had an economic boom. This boom didn't have anything to do with the financial crisis. When the Europeans said, we are going to help bail you out but we want you to raise some revenue. The Irish responded that they would include some taxes increases in their budget, but they would not raise their corporate tax rate. They refused because they said it was helping them economically. And I really believe we need to do that. So Canada is reducing theirs, Ireland has reduced theirs, the U.K.-- the Brits--are reducing theirs. I think they are going to about the midtwenties, and we are at 35. I know there is this idea that you can just eliminate the loopholes and bring down the overall rate to the high twenties in the United States and this will be the equivalent of a tax cut, but I really don't believe it is. I believe that all you have done is maybe created a little more efficient and simpler tax, which is not bad, but it hasn't gotten the economic tax burden off the American businesses that are trying to compete in the world marketplace. What else could we do to create jobs? Eliminate the health care bill. I know, people are dug in on this, they don't want to talk about it. It was passed by one single vote. Had Scott Brown been elected 2 weeks sooner, the bill would not have been passed; it would not be law today. But it is law. What does the Congressional Budget Office say about its impact on jobs in America? CBO says it will reduce employment by half of 1 percent. Former CBO Director Doug Holtz-Eakin estimates that this translates into a loss of 700,000 jobs as a result of the health care bill. Actually, I believe it is quite a bit larger than that. I visited with small business people in Phoenix City, AL, Jasper, AL, 15 or 20 in each, and they told me it was going to cause them to reduce employment. There is no doubt about it. One man said: I have 10 fast food restaurants, 200 employees. I believe I am heading toward a reduction of 70 workers. If it is a reduction of 10 workers, it is too many. Even if it is a reduction of five. We need growth in jobs, not a reduction in jobs. The health care bill is killing jobs. The Congressional Budget Office Director is hired by the Congress. Mr. Elmendorf, who does that, was selected by the Democratic majority. I like him. I think he is an honest man. He said it will cost jobs in America to continue the health care bill. I believe it is going to be far more significant than he suggests. At the Budget Committee hearing yesterday, I asked the witnesses if temporary extensions of tax rates add uncertainty to the economy? Would the economy be better with permanent rates? They said yes. Everyone-- liberal, conservative--said this uncertainty is not good for economic growth and job creation in America. Congress must get together, and it is going to take a bipartisan effort to try to get these tax rates permanent and all of us are going to have to work on it. But permanent tax rates would clearly be helpful. I believe the President is going to have to help us in Congress to reduce the surging deficit spending that is well on the path to doubling the entire debt of America in 5 years and tripling it in 10. I know people think that is not true but it is. We are entering into the third year of a 5-year trend to double the debt. It will triple again in 5 more years. The President announced he would freeze a small portion of our spending, discretionary spending, at its current 2010 levels--which surged in the last 2 years by double-digit increases. He would freeze it at that level. That is very small and will not alter the path we are on to doubling the debt in 5 years and tripling in 10. It will not alter that. That is how small an impact that proposal would have. We have to get together here in Congress and wrestle with it, but we need some leadership. If we could get at the cloud of debt and fear that is out there among a lot of Americans on the street and fear among a lot of the world's best financial minds who move money around in huge amounts--they are afraid too. The only people who do not seem to be quite sufficiently grasping this are our Washington bureaucracy. I think the Congress is beginning to get it. I think Congress is thinking about it. I believe the Washington establishment is still sort of in denial. They think we can somehow make a few token changes in what we do and everything is going to be OK, but it won't. I am saying, how do we create jobs now? Take some real firm steps, and the world says: Wow, the United States has gone off an unsustainable path to a path that could lead to prosperity and growth, and we are willing to invest in the country again. Let me mention one more thing. We have a border that is still wide open and lawless. Thousands, millions of people are coming in illegally still, and they are taking jobs from American citizens. We arrested 500,000 people at the border last year. How many more got by? We just added 36,000 jobs this month. Some think that was a good number. It is below what we have to add. But we had that many illegal people coming into the country and seeking work and taking jobs from American citizens, providing competitive employment that drives down wages. One of the things you do in a time of high unemployment is you reduce guest worker programs and you reduce illegal immigration. Mr. Bernanke testified before our Budget Committee a couple of weeks ago that we are treading water. We need 150,000 jobs added every month to stay even, and to change the dynamic of high unemployment we need at least 250,000 a month. We have had that coming out of previous recessions. We are just not seeing it in this one. An economy that only creates 36,000 jobs, even if that number is somewhat low because of bad weather, is in bad shape. It is below what the experts projected. I believe we can say now with great confidence that the Federal Government's attempts to borrow money--on which we pay interest as long as we live on this Earth--to pump into the economy as a short-term stimulus, a sugar high, is not effective. It is not working. We have to do the kinds of things I mentioned, and there are a lot more that would actually create productivity, make our corporations and businesses more competitive, and therefore allow them to compete against foreign competition, create jobs, growth, exports--reduce our imports of oil and gas that are helping drive up our energy costs and moving jobs out of the country and moving American wealth out of the country. If we do those kinds of things, we can make real progress. I think we can. We need help from the administration. I believe the American people are open to these ideas. The idea is that this is not a popular plan because we are talking about cutting taxes on corporations and nobody wants to do that, they don't believe that, the American people won't support that. But I think the American people will understand we cannot tax our corporations more than they are doing in Canada--35 percent to 16 percent--and expect to win competition for jobs and business. We have to look at the taxes that are killing jobs and try to make our tax policy nurture growth and prosperity. Spending restraint is necessary now because of our profligate habits and the situation we find ourselves in. But it is not the future, if we do the right thing. This country can compete if we take on good policies in an effective way. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was honored to hear Senator McCain's comments on Ronald Reagan. This Sunday is indeed the 100th anniversary of his birth. It is an opportunity for the whole Nation to honor the memory of a man who honored us with his leadership. In the 1980s, we were a weakened country. Inflation and unemployment were in double digits. The hostage crisis in Iran dragged on, with no end in sight. Our standing abroad was waning and so too was our military strength. Challenges at home were answered with one failed Washington program after another. We had lost confidence in our future and really in the principles that made us exceptional. Ronald Reagan changed that. Part of that change began with 12 simple, crucial words: Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. It is a big part of our problem. He stirred the passions of our country, revitalizing not only our economy but our identity and confidence as free people. What some have called the Reagan revolution he called the great rediscovery. He instilled us with a new confidence in our future and in America's role as the last best hope of mankind. His achievements are well known, but they bear repeating. Working with Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he tamed the inflation which was robbing Americans of their life's work and savings. It was a tough course, a tough road, but he saw it through. He stayed on the course, and we were stronger as a result. We need to get on a tough road and stay the course today. He lowered taxes dramatically, including a reduction in the top rate from nearly 70 percent, and he reined in a runaway bureaucracy that had trapped innovation and productivity in a labyrinth of regulation and redtape. His faith in the free market was not misplaced. It rewarded us. He created 20 million new jobs, grew our gross national product by 26 percent, and began the longest peacetime boom in our history. Conditions improved for Americans in every walk of life. The net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 rose by 27 percent. Reagan's stunning success debunked every myth of those who believe a bigger government is more compassionate and can do more for more people. The growth and potential productivity of the private sector is what has made America the most prosperous Nation. This success at home was matched by his success abroad. He defended our principles and our way of life with clarity, confidence, and vigor. His policies brought down the Soviet Empire. ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall'' still resonates in our minds, and it liberated untold millions. Today, more than 20 years after President Reagan left office, we find ourselves facing many of the same challenges: a sagging economy, a growing government, and a diminished standing in the world. We would be wise to remember the lessons of that era: peace through strength, prosperity through freedom. He understood that our future greatness lies in the same place it always has--through our pioneering, restless, enterprising spirit that is filled with ambition and excitement, and a deep sense of honor and decency that defines who we are as a people and who we will be tomorrow. In President Reagan's farewell address, he issued a word of caution: If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I am warning of an eradication of that--of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. As we face daunting, defining challenges of our time, I hope we look back to the leadership he provided. On a personal note, I was tremendously honored to have been appointed a U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Alabama by President Reagan in 1981. It was an office in which I had served as an assistant a number of years before. To be able to come back and lead that office was such a personal thrill. The President did not give me any directions as to what we were to do, but I absolutely knew--and I have often said it is a great example of true leadership--I knew exactly what he wanted me to do. I gathered the staff, many of whom I had worked with years before, and used these words: President Reagan sent me here to prosecute criminals and protect the U.S. Treasury. I believe that is what he did. I believe that was implicit in his campaign, his consistent leadership, that he believed in law and order and efficiency, and he wanted us to fight corruption and try to help produce a more efficient government. I remember in those days we went to a U.S. attorneys conference. I attended with my good friend, recently the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, Larry Thompson. We would share rooms on the trips to save money because we knew and believed President Reagan wanted us to save money. Our spending was out of control, and we had a serious financial problem. Our budgets were frozen. But we worked harder and we produced more. That can be done today. This whining that we cannot reduce spending-- and many times, they define ``reducing spending'' as a reduction of the projected rate of growth. It is not even a reduction of current level spending. These kinds of things happened throughout the government. It increased productivity of our government. It reduced the take of the Federal Government of the private economy. The private economy grew, and the government sector became more efficient and more productive. That is what we need to return to. It was such a fabulous honor to have the opportunity to serve in that position. I hope I was faithful to the values of the President who appointed me. I have to say, I think I knew what they were, and I know I gave my best effort to be worthy of the trust he placed in me. That was true of many more people throughout the Federal Government. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in strong and vehement support of the amendment of Senator McConnell to repeal the health care reform law as now constituted, and I will support replacing it with reforms that truly provide Americans with access to quality, affordable health care, reduce skyrocketing health care costs, and put our Nation on a more sustainable fiscal path. These good goals can be achieved. But this current bill does not do it. I am pleased to see my colleague say he would accept some amendments, but the Johanns amendment he referenced was voted on twice last year. When the Democrats held a significant majority in this body they voted it down. After seven new Members have been added, many of them elected on a promise to repeal this bill--virtually everyone on the promise to repeal this bill--we now have agreement to change the 1099 reporting requirements, which is about one-thousandth of 1 percent of what is significant about this legislation. Indeed, if Senator Scott Brown had been elected a month or so sooner, the bill would not have been passed on December 24, the day before Christmas. The truth is, the American people have never supported this bill. Polling numbers show they still do not support this bill. The Democratic health care legislation was sold as a package that would reduce insurance premiums by $2,500 dollars per family. We were told that repeatedly. It was also supposed to reduce the Federal deficit, and immediately create 400,000 new jobs. Sadly, none of these promises were met. They were all false. The claims were attacked on this floor by sophisticated people who pointed out how these matters were not going to be achieved, and they have not been. They were false then, and they are false now. Instead, the new health care law will cause health care spending to rise over the next decade. Americans will see dramatic increases in their premiums. That is a fact. The Federal deficit will increase by an additional $700 billion. This bill does not reduce the deficit, and the law's expensive mandates, penalties, and tax hikes will lead to job losses and layoffs that will damage our economy. The last thing we need to do now is to have employers lay off people because of surging health care costs, as is happening. Talk to small businesses in your community to confirm this. As our Nation's reckless fiscal policy and surging debt bring us ever closer to a tipping point--a debt crisis that could substantially damage our country, as it has others around the world--respected economists have stressed the need for Congress to reduce Federal spending and contain mounting health care cost. But rather than tackle these problems that threaten the long-term stability of our Nation, the new health care law exacerbates our fiscal crisis by creating a new, open-ended entitlement, a monumental new entitlement program and by introducing $2.6 trillion in new spending. Tell me how we can spend $2.6 trillion and not increase our country's debt. Entitlements today are hammering our budget. They are surging our deficit. Entitlements are dangerous things. The last thing we need to do is create a new entitlement program that is not going to have restrained spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office, our official analysts appointed by the Democratic majority, says that the health care law will cause insurance premiums in the individual market to soar by 10 percent to 13 percent; for American families, translating into a $2,100 increase in their costs for purchasing health care coverage by 2016. That is huge. Another $2,100? That is a stunning development, and it is the exact opposite of the promises for the bill. CBO determined that. Total health care spending in the United States consumes already 17.3 percent of GDP, and we have felt that was too high. It is the largest of any industrialized nation in the world. But under this new law, the national health care spending will approach 20 percent of GDP by the end of this decade. Sadly, many supporters of the health care law continue to perpetuate the myth that repealing this law would increase the deficit. My friend, Senator Schumer, said: Repeal the law, and the deficit will go up. A thorough examination of the law pulls back the curtains and exposes the deceptive budget gimmicks to reveal its true cost. First, our Democratic colleagues double counted $398 billion in Medicare costs and taxes, $29 billion in Social Security taxes, $70 billion in new long-term health care premiums to pay for the new health care spending--all double counted money. It is the largest false accounting scheme, I suppose, in the history of the world. Think I am exaggerating? December 23--the night before this health care bill was finally passed 60 to 40, 60 Democrats, 40 Republicans--I called the Congressional Budget Office and Dr. Elmendorf, selected by our Democratic colleagues to be the Budget Director. This is what he said: The key point is, savings to the HI trust fund--that is the hospital insurance trust fund of Medicare--under the health care bill would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on the other parts of the legislation or on other programs. This bill was cutting Medicare benefits and raising Medicare taxes. They did not use the money to strengthen Medicare, which is heading to insolvency. They took the money and spent it on a new program. Actually, they borrowed the money from Medicare. But it was not the Treasury's money to spend on new programs. The way it was written, the CBO score double counted the money. It is this money that they are counting to say this bill actually creates a surplus. Without this money, there is no surplus. Since Medicare is going into deficit, they are going to call their debt instruments, their bonds from the Treasury as they go into deficit. By the way, the U.S. Treasury pays Medicare interest on the money they borrowed from them to start this new program. Soon that money is going to be gone. We are going to have to borrow money on the open market to fund this new entitlement, and the new entitlement is going to cost far more than is currently estimated. Over the 10-year budget window, the Congressional Budget Office reports point out how the law was doctored to start certain revenue enhancements, taxes, and so forth now, but only starting the expenditure programs in 2014. Why is that important? Well, they got a score from CBO of what it would cost over 10 years. So you get income for 10 years and you get expenditures for 6. This plus the double counting of the money and several other gimmicks might look pretty good, which is how they say this is creating a surplus. But it is not a surplus. As the ranking member on the Budget Committee, I am stunned by how difficult and how challenging our current financial situation is. We have to do something about it. We need the President to help us and lead, but he is not, so it looks like Congress may have to tackle it. The former Director of the CBO, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist who understands budget gimmicks and has seen them for many years, cowrote an article in the Wall Street Journal in January that eliminates any confusion about the law's impact. I am disappointed that Members of our Senate are still coming down here to suggest that repeal of this law is going to adversely impact our deficit. I am stunned to see this continue to be repeated. This is what Dr. Holtz-Eakin, a highly respected individual, said in the Wall Street Journal in January. The article is entitled, ``Health Care Repeal Won't Add to the Deficit.'' He said this: Repeal is a logical first step towards restoring fiscal sanity. Fiscal sanity. He goes on: How then does the Affordable Care Act magically convert $1 trillion in new spending into painless deficit reduction? It is all about budget gimmicks, deceptive accounting, and implausible assumptions used to create the false impression of fiscal discipline. Repeal is not a budget buster, keeping the Affordable Care Act is. This Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office. There is no question about it. That is a stunning thing. A poll by the Kaiser Foundation and Harvard University released last week revealed that the American people are seeing through these ploys. They have heard these talks before, and they are not buying it. Sixty percent of the country believes the health care law will increase the deficit over the next 10 years, while only 11 percent think it will lower the deficit. So, colleagues, give us a break, would you? The American people are not going to buy this argument. I wish it would not be repeated. But the President continues to say it himself. Clearly, the American people, once again, show they are wiser than their government leaders in many instances. The final point I would like to make about the health care law is its debilitating impact on jobs. The expensive mandates and penalties included in the health care law, coupled with rising costs of insurance facing families and businesses, are costing us jobs right now, and it will continue to do so in the future. I will just add, I had meetings with small business groups in Phenix City, AL, and Jasper, AL, with 10 or 15 individuals. Every one of them told me, without question, this health care law would cause them to reduce their employment. We do not need to be reducing employment; we need to be increasing employment. This bill is a job killer. It is indisputable. Over 6,000 pages of regulations have been written. Economic estimates indicate that repealing the law that threatens our economic recovery would save 700,000 jobs. It is imperative that Congress repeals this law. Yes, we need to start and continue to work on things we already agreed on, such as preexisting conditions, interstate competition, and other things that we all agreed on and could agree on to make health care better. That is not the massive Federal entitlement program that funded by dubious gimmicks imposed on the American people against their will and damaging to the American economy. We cannot allow this. It will be repealed, in my view. I know my time is up. I will just conclude by saying, we had a new election. A lot of people took that issue to the American people. I think their voice was clear. The American people are not happy with Congress, which did not listen to them and passed the bill against the public's wishes. They expect Congress to reconsider it, eliminate it and start over with new legislation. Their message is clear, and that is what we need to do. I urge my colleagues to support Senator McConnell's amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, Tom Brokaw, in his book ``The Greatest Generation,'' describes the generation that survived the Great Depression and World War II. He notes that their sacrifices made possible the many comforts and conveniences we enjoy today. On October 27, 2010, America and Alabama lost one of the best examples of that generation with the death of Hall Williams Thompson of Birmingham, AL. That Hall Thompson was a very successful family man, businessman, civic leader, and philanthropist, there can be no doubt, and much could be said about a host of areas where he served, giving back to his State and his Nation. But I want to share a few remarks about one of his most notable qualities--his patriotism. Hall Thompson loved his country. He had fought for it, serving in the Pacific during World War II in the Army Air Corps. And that commitment to serving his country never abated. Indeed, while he had strong views about our country and the exceptional nature of the American experience and was never afraid to express them, he was ever anxious to respect those who may disagree. He would, with sincerity, ask questions about the subject which concerned him and at the end of the conversation would say something like, ``Well, I just think . . .'' or, ``I am just concerned.'' He made his point clearly but courteously. On a personal note, I called Hall and asked him to support a political event. Quickly, he assured me he could come and asked if Lucy, his wonderful wife and partner of 66 years, could attend. The answer, of course, was yes, as everyone loves Lucy. But in asking that question, Hall showed his humility and courtesy. So, we gathered on October 19, and I took the opportunity during the event to personally thank Hall for his support for me in 1994 when I ran for attorney general of Alabama and for his support of many great causes. He did not know me well in 1994 but had heard good things about me, and he was very generous in his support. I thanked him for that and noted that he had never asked for a single thing personally, only for good government. The fact that there are others in our country like Hall who support their candidates, Republicans and Democrats, liberal and conservative, because of values and principles and not for personal gain, is important to our country's political health. They should be appreciated. They make the country a better place. Later during that same meeting, Hall Thompson suffered the stroke that would sadly take his life 9 days later. He had lived a full life of 87 years. He left an accomplished and loving family and a host of friends and admirers. He loved America, closely monitored her progress, and was ready to help whenever possible. He was a true patriot. Our State and Nation will miss him.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it is appropriate that we take a moment to note the passing of Dr. Edmond Dyas of Mobile, AL, who was one of Alabama's most famous athletes and an accomplished orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Dyas first came to my attention when I was a young Boy Scout thrilled with the opportunity to have the chance to attend Auburn University football games as an usher. He was one of my first heroes. He was an Auburn team leader, a three-time Academic All American and All American, the Southeastern Conference's top running back in 1960, and set the NCAA record for career field goals, and he was selected as a member of the College Football Hall of Fame in 2009. He finished fourth in 1960 in the Heisman Trophy balloting. I was at the game when he was pushed and injured hitting the bench with his face, causing him to miss the Alabama game, thus losing the opportunity to perhaps win the Heisman Trophy. I also was at Auburn for a famous Auburn-Georgia game. Georgia was led by Fran Tarkenton and Pat Dye, later Auburn's head coach. In that classic game, Ed Dyas hit three field goals and Durwood Pennington hit two. The final: 9 to 6. Ed was a superb surgeon, community leader, and family man. He fought his cancer like the champion he was. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife Diane, four children, and seven grandchildren.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator Kyl, who is this body's premier student of the nuclear strategic posture of the United States. I served and have served as chairman of that subcommittee of Armed Services. I share his concern. I am thankful that he is here and is keeping up with these matters year after year. Most of us would rather not talk about them, but they represent the serious responsibilities of a great nation that must be able to defend itself, to be able to live freely and prosperously. So I thank the Senator for his remarks, and I value his friendship and enjoy following his leadership. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report that--our Congressional Budget Office's leadership is selected by the majority in the Congress, the Democratic majority--that report showed our deficit for this year, which will end September 30, will be $1.5 trillion. That is the largest deficit the Nation has ever had. The last 2 years have been $1.3 trillion and $1.4 trillion. This year's deficit is projected to come in at $1.5 trillion. We complained--I have--that President Bush spent more money than he should have, but his highest deficit was one- third of that, or $460 billion. So we are at unprecedented levels of annual deficit and debt. Our gross debt, the total United States debt, internal and external, will equal, by the end of the year, 100 percent of GDP. Annual interest payments--we borrow money; people loan us their money, and we give them Treasury bills and bonds in exchange, and we pay them interest on the debt. The amount of interest we pay will rise to $750 billion by the end of this decade. That means a 1-year interest payment will cost us nearly as much as 20 years of current highway construction spending. We spend about $40 billion a year, for example, on Federal highway expenditures. We are talking about interest payments going from $180 billion or so a couple of years ago to $750 billion, and our debt will triple in that time--from $5 trillion to over $15 trillion. The total amount of interest we expect to pay between now and the end of the decade is $5.5 trillion in interest, which is enough money to fund our entire government for 18 months. The situation is so serious that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned very recently that we may face a bond market crisis in the next 2 to 3 years. He said it is a little better than a 50-50 chance that it won't happen, but not much better. That was his comment. CBO Director Doug Elmendorf testified last week before the Budget Committee, where I am ranking member, that we were entering ``unfamiliar territory for all developed nations over the last several decades.'' He is talking about financially, debt. Analysts for Standard and Poors stated that ``absent a credible plan, the rating on the U.S. Federal Government will come under pressure''-- in other words, the rating on our debt, which is AAA. If that happens, our interest rate, as I have been suggesting, will go up, because if our ratings go down, people will demand higher interest before loaning us money. The International Monetary Fund urged the United States to take much stronger action. This is on the Washington Post business page of a few days ago: U.S. Must Reduce Deficit, IMF Warns. They are not perfect, but they claim to be the conscience of the world and warn profligate nations to get their houses in order before it creates systemic problems for other nations. It says: European countries have begun a pointed dialog with their residents about what government can and cannot afford. Moves to cut public salaries, trim services, and curb public pensions have touched off strikes and protests, but also puts the deficits of those countries on what seems to be a ``securely downward path,'' the IMF said. Those are the choices the United States has been hesitant to make. Two prominent economists, Carmen Reinhart, who testified before our committee, and Dr. Kenneth Rogoff, issued a paper explaining the negative impact of excessive debt on economic growth. He actually wrote a book. They have studied countries in the last 200 years that have had their economies collapse as a result of debt--a lot of South American countries at various times, such as Argentina and others. They caution that there is a point beyond which you do not want to go. That point is when your debt equals 90 percent of your economy, 90 percent of GDP. That is a very respected study--the first time anybody ever studied the economies that have had economic collapse. This is a key factor in that. We are now at 94 percent of GDP, and by the end of the year, the CBO projects we will be at 100 percent. Our debt will equal 100 percent of the entire goods and services produced in this economy. Our Nation is on a dangerous--as everybody we have had testify before the committee and virtually anybody who has expressed themselves calls it--unsustainable path. The President said we are on an unsustainable path. We need strong leadership from our President. The day before his State of the Union, I wrote an op-ed that was published in the Washington Post. I called on him to present a broad vision for reducing spending. I said, ``his proposals cannot be timid'' and that this was ``a defining moment for his Presidency.'' I have to say that he did not rise to that occasion. Instead of a bold vision, he put forward a meek plan to continue spending at current levels for 5 more years, calling that a freeze. But we have had a surge in spending in the last 2 years. Freezing at that level cannot be acceptable. These are the levels that produced the $1.5 trillion deficit. The President's speech, I must say, was disconnected from reality. Nowhere in that speech did he enter into a dialog with the American people about the severity of the crisis we face, or make any attempt to call on them in a serious way to understand why it is that we can't continue at this level of spending. He failed to present a credible plan. This is what the Washington Post said in an editorial yesterday. They weren't mean spirited about it, but you could tell they were disappointed: In his State of the Union Address Tuesday night, President Obama failed to present a credible plan for a long-term debt reduction. It's no secret that we think he made a big mistake. If America can't get a handle on its finances, everything else is at risk. But not only has the President failed to lead with ideas, he has set about to thwart, to block others from taking action. This is concerning to me. This Sunday, on one of the big news programs, his new Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, balked at a Republican plan to cut spending for the rest of the year. He said any budget cuts must be paired with new spending-- ``investments,'' as he and the President called them. He taunted the Republicans, I think, with, ``Where's the beef? Let's see the cuts they're talking about.'' The President refuses to lead and then sends his emissaries to attack any Republican who makes a serious proposal and, I assume, as being heartless and wanting to throw children in the streets, and so forth. For instance, the President's chief economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, lashed out at Republicans for wanting to reduce discretionary spending before we raise the debt ceiling. We have to have some sort of bipartisan agreement before we agree to raise this debt ceiling that we are going to reduce some of the spending, clip back on the credit card a little bit, something significant. The President's own Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, recently argued that it was too early to begin cutting the deficit. So it is unsustainable, but it is too early to start cutting it now--maybe in 2012, or after that, maybe. Geithner's comments ring all too similar to those of his predecessor, Hank Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury under President Bush, who said the housing downturn was under control, before the Wall Street firms began falling like dominoes. But ignoring the reality of our situation does not change it. The money simply isn't there to support the President's spending agenda that he announced at the State of the Union Address. We don't have the money. Our Nation cannot afford another era of big government. In 2 weeks, on February 14--just 2 weeks from now--the President will submit a new budget to Congress. He will go to our Budget Committee. This may be--and I say this seriously--his last chance to get it right, for the President to be a credible voice in this debate. He must put forward a budget that significantly lowers spending levels. He cannot present Congress with the same unserious plan he presented last Tuesday night. Three years into his turn, I think this budget he will be submitting is a defining act of what he views and how he views the debt we face. I think if this budget fails to meet the necessary demands for curtailing spending, we will know pretty conclusively where the President is. Numbers count. You can have rhetoric and we can disagree, but at some point you have to put out your budget that says what you are going to do, how much you are going to spend, and where you are going to get the money--in this case, how much we are going to borrow to carry on the government at that time. So we are going to see whether the President is moving with the American people to fiscal and economic sanity or whether he will continue his ideological commitment to big government. I think that is it. I think we will know in 2 weeks. It is a serious matter. So I think we need to turn back from the cliff toward which we are heading and get on a new road. We need to reduce both the size of the deficit, and we will have to reduce the size of the government somewhat. We are not going to sink into the ocean. If we go back to 2008, 2006 levels of Federal spending, will the country collapse? Give me a break. Certainly, it is not going to collapse, but it will put us on a road to fiscal sanity. It will restore not only public confidence in our economy, but it will restore the foundations of American prosperity. I truly believe one of the clouds over the American economy is the perception--unfortunately, too true--that we are spending at a reckless rate, that we are irresponsibly running up the debt, and that could cause us to inflate the value of our currency, that could cause a debt crisis, which Mr. Greenspan said was almost a 50-50 chance in the next 2 to 3 years. If you have money to invest, what does that say to you? Maybe you better sit back and see a little more until we get this debt--that is spiraling out of control--under control. Until we are headed on a downward path toward a balanced budget, we are not going to see the economic growth that is possible. I think that is where we should be heading. So strong, sustained reductions in spending will not be easy. It will take us down a tough road, but it is the only road, the only course that will lead to a better financial future for ourselves and our children and preserving the integrity of the U.S. economy in a way that is necessary for growth to occur. I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. I object.

Mr. SESSIONS. I wish 1 additional minute to wrap up, if I could, and then I will yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I have the floor, I believe.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, after this competition has been going on for quite a number of years, and both parties have been very seriously competing for this contract, it is expected to be awarded in March of next year. The Defense Department has considered every one of these issues, including the WTO issue. The lawyers talked about it and we have talked about it in the Senate and the House. At this very last minute, on the eve of awarding the competition, a House bill was passed without any debate. We have not discussed it or had a hearing on it. It should not be approved. I object. I yield the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I appreciate the loyalty of my colleague from Washington for the Boeing facility that is there. I just want to say that other workers are involved, including 48,000 new jobs that would be created if the plant in Alabama were to be the one selected in this competition. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I would note that we voted a number of years ago unanimously to have a competition. There are only two companies in the world that can make this kind of aircraft. It is a commercial aircraft, not a highly sophisticated defense system such as a fighter. The EADS team committed to build that in America--bringing jobs not just to Alabama but jobs all over the Nation, far more around the Nation than just in Alabama--and to create a third major world aircraft facility. Congress asked that the bids be competitively let and that these two competitors be given a chance to submit the best proposal. I am highly convinced that the EADS aircraft is superior--is larger, it is newer--and more effective in the role it is asked to fulfill.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Just briefly on the remarks about the missile defense, I have served as chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and ranking member and have been involved in it for quite a few years. I think the language affirms the continued development of the two-stage, ground-based interceptor. Then, I guess, I accept the language that says ``as a technological and strategic hedge.'' But I would just say to my colleagues, the reason we are at this point is because, during the negotiations with the Russians concerning the New START treaty, the administration, responding to Russian objections about missile defense--which were so unfounded and I could never fathom--the administration agreed, in September of last year, unilaterally, and to the utter surprise of Poland and the Czech Republic, to cancel the planned two-stage GBI that was to be deployed in 2016 in Poland. It was a great embarrassment to our allies. They had been negotiating with us for many years on this project. They had stood firm for it, and the administration then promised this phase four SM-3 Block 2B. But it was not on the drawing board, not under development, and cannot be completed until 2020 if we as a Congress fund it over that decade. The President certainly will not be in office at that time. So I am uneasy about this whole matter of missile defense. I think the administration made a colossal error in giving up on the planned two-stage strategic policy. But this language is better than no language. I thank my colleagues for moving forward with it.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have given a lot of thought to the treaty, and having been involved in missile defense and nuclear issues serving on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of Armed Services, as ranking member and chairman, many of the provisions in the treaty are acceptable and should pose no threat to our national security. But considered as part of the administration's stated foreign policy and strategic policy and in relation to the reality of the world situation today, I do not believe the treaty will make us safer. I think that is a good test. I disagree with my colleagues who are overly confident that this is going to make the world safer. I believe the treaty, for that reason, should be rejected. Some say a defeat for the treaty would harm the United States. I think the entire world would see the Senate action as a resurgence of America's historical policy of peace through strength and a rejection of a leftist vision of a world without nuclear weapons. The negotiating posture statements and actions of Russia indicate it is regressing sadly into an old Soviet mindset as it views the outside world. This is disappointing and indicative of anything but the positive reset we hope to achieve with them. It is extremely important for Russian and U.S. security and world security, that Russia sees its role as a positive force for peace and security. These negotiations, however, show the face of the old Soviet Union. They have been so relentless in the way they have negotiated. Negotiations with any mature power, especially Russia, are difficult and serious. This administration began with a naive expectation that a treaty could be quickly achieved that would show their leadership towards peace and a nuclear-free world. The Obama administration wanted to set an example for other nations to reduce their nuclear weapons towards a world without any nuclear weapons. We have heard this leadership and this setting of an example theme repeatedly from the President and the administration. But Russia has not the slightest interest in such vague concepts, nor in eliminating all nuclear weapons. They have no idea or intention ever of relinquishing nuclear weapons. They are focused on their own national interest, on coming out ahead in the negotiations for military, political, psychological, and hegemonic reasons. It seems clear to me that Russia got what it wanted and President Obama got a treaty paper which strategically means very little but can be touted as a victory for peace. So this is what I have concluded during this debate--and the debate has been helpful--the debate has caused me to think through a good bit of this. A longer debate at a different time of the year, I think, could have helped all of our colleagues. I do not believe the success in negotiation of the treaty will in any way make the Russians more cooperative, as the administration has repeatedly suggested. Russia has been inconsistent at best in helping the United States with the danger of nuclear Iran and North Korea--the gravest threats to peace in the world, with military action being undertaken against our ally, South Korea, in recent weeks, and with the real possibility of an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons that, hopefully, can be avoided. Why has Russia not been more cooperative? They blocked a resolution condemning North Korea Sunday in the U.N. Russia attacked Georgia, a sovereign nation, and continues to occupy Georgian territory. This shocking act of aggression condemned by independent bodies goes without any real U.S. response. Georgia is a pro-American, free market, independent nation whose attack was calculated and deliberate. Russia continues to work to undermine the pro-Western democracy movement in the Ukraine. They continue a host of actions that evidence a long-term plan to effect a real or de facto reabsorption of these three nations into what was the old Soviet Union. So these ominous trends, it seems to me, have not been seriously considered throughout this quest for the treaty. The events do not give me confidence that the treaty, therefore, is a positive step for the United States, the world, or for peace. Secondly, as I noted, and I will not go into detail now, the administration conceded the two-staged, ground-based interceptor site that would have been established in Poland, that would provide redundant protection to the United States from an Iranian missile and protected virtually all of Europe from an Iranian missile. That was given away unilaterally by the administration without prior warning to our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic. They heard about it in the paper. They realized the United States had gone behind them, our allies, and made a deal with the Russians. It was a very unfortunate event, indeed. The plan that has been talked about--the fourth phase of the SM-3 Phased Adaptive Approach--is not even on the drawing board and is unlikely to actually survive. It would be difficult to see it surviving in five different budget cycles over the next 10 years it would take to develop that system. We walked away from one that could be deployed soon. I offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to make clear the Senate does not concur in an ill-conceived vision of the administration that would move us to a world without nuclear weapons. I thank Senators Kyl, LeMieux, Cornyn, Chambliss, and Inhofe for cosponsoring the amendment. While I will not insist on a vote at this hour, this matter will be a significant subject for the future. Thirdly, I would suggest the treaty is promoted as a step towards a world free of nuclear weapons. This is a fantastical idea that goes beyond insignificance, it is dangerous. Basing any policy, especially a nuclear policy, on an idea as cockamamie as zero nuclear weapons in the world can only lead to confusion and uncertainty. Confusion and uncertainty are the polar opposites of the necessary attributes of security and stability. These are the essentials of good strategic policy: security and stability. Thus, the Obama policy creates a more dangerous world. Some say the President's zero nukes policy is just a distant vision, some vague wish, so don't worry. The situation would be much better if that were so, but it is not. President Obama has made zero nuclear weapons a cornerstone of our defense policy. It has, amazingly, already been made a centerpiece of our military policy, being advanced by concrete steps today. Presidents, Commanders-in-Chief, have the power to make such monumental changes in policy, and this President is certainly doing so. The change is seen most seriously in the critically important Nuclear Posture Review produced in April 2010 by the Defense Department. This document is a formal document produced by the new administration's Defense Department. The determination to pursue the zero nuclear weapons vision is seen throughout this review. Amazingly, there are 30 references in that document to a world without nuclear weapons. The NPR begins with an introductory letter from Secretary of Defense Gates, the second sentence of which says this: As the President said in Prague last year, a world without nuclear weapons will not be achieved quickly, but we must begin to take concrete steps today. The Executive Summary further drives the issue home. The first sentence in the Executive Summary recalls that President Obama, in Prague, highlighted nuclear dangers and said: The United States will seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the NPR is particularly ominous and even chilling to me. Posture Reviews are defense reviews, and by their nature are bottom-up reports, driven by threat assessments and the requirements necessary to defend America. These reviews historically are objective analyses from experts, not political reports. The troubling line reads: The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) outlines the Administration's approach to promoting the President's agenda for reducing nuclear dangers and pursuing the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. This statement reveals the whole truth. The NPR is the President's policy, sent from the top down, not the bottom up. Stunningly, the report lacks a clear focus on the only objective that counts: Securing a nuclear arsenal second to none that can, under any circumstances, deter attacks on and defend the United States and its allies. Fourthly, the Obama vision of a world without nuclear weapons has not been well received. Indeed, the breadth of the criticism from experts and world leaders is noteworthy. Two years ago, Congress adopted an amendment I proposed that called for a commission to review the strategic posture of the United States. It was bipartisan and chaired by former Secretaries of Defense Dr. William Perry and Dr. James Schlesinger. The commission powerfully dismissed the idea of a world without nuclear weapons. In somewhat diplomatic but clear and strong language, they said this: The conditions that might make possible the global elimination of nuclear weapons are not present today and their creation would require a fundamental transformation of the world political order. They went on to say this: All of the commission members believe that reaching the ultimate goal of global nuclear elimination would require a fundamental change in geopolitics. Maybe the Second Coming. Others have dismissed this concept as a wild chimera. French President Sarkozy, from one of our European allies, France, said this: It [our nuclear deterrent] is neither a matter of prestige nor a question of rank, it is quite simply the Nation's life insurance policy. He made clear they had no intention of giving that up. Secretary James Schlesinger, back when President Reagan was meeting in Reykjavik over nuclear issues, made this wise comment: Nuclear arsenals are going to be with us as long as there are sovereign states with conflicting ideologies. Unlike Aladdin with his lamp, we have no way to force the nuclear genie back into the bottle. A world without nuclear weapons is a utopian dream. Keith Payne, who served on this nuclear commission, writing recently in the National Review, said: The presumption that United States movement toward nuclear disarmament will deliver nonproliferation success is a fantasy. On the contrary, the United States nuclear arsenal has itself been the single most important tool for nonproliferation in history, and dismantling it would be a huge setback. Remember the commission. Jonathan Tepperman, in Newsweek, said: And even if Russia and China (and France, Britain, Israel, India, and Pakistan) could be coaxed to abandon their weapons, we'd still live with the fear that any of them could quickly and secretly rearm. Gideon Rachman, in Financial Times, said: The idea of a world free of nuclear weapons is not so much an impossible dream as an impossible nightmare. William Kristol, writing in the Washington Post, in October, said: Yet to justify a world without nuclear weapons, what Obama would really have to envision is a world without war, or without threats of war. . . .The danger is that the allure of a world without nuclear weapons can be a distraction--even an excuse for not acting against real nuclear threats. . . .So while Obama talks of a future without nuclear weapons, the trajectory we are on today is toward a nuclear--and missile- capable North Korea and Iran--and a far more dangerous world. Others have also written about this. David Von Drehle, writing in Time Magazine, said: A world with nuclear weapons in it is a scary, scary place to think about. The industrialized world without nuclear weapons was a scary, scary place for real. But there is no way to un-ring the nuclear bell. The science and technology of nuclear weapons is widespread, and if nukes are outlawed someday, only outlaws will have nukes. Kenneth Waltz, leading arms controller and professor emeritus of political science at UC Berkeley, said: We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states. Importantly, the administration's planned further diminishment of our nuclear stockpile--further diminishing it from these numbers--and President Obama's hostility to the utility of nuclear weapons generally has caused a great deal of unease among our non-nuclear allies. These nations are not so open about their concerns, but the problem is a very real one. The American nuclear umbrella, our extended deterrence, has allowed our allies, free democratic nations, to remain nuclear free, without having nuclear weapons. But if the Obama policy continues, the Perry- Schlesinger report concludes real dangers may await: If we are unsuccessful in dealing with current challenges, we may find ourselves at a tipping point, where many additional states conclude that they require nuclear deterrents of their own. If this tipping point is itself mishandled, we may well find ourselves faced with a cascade of proliferation. The nuclear commission--President Obama appointed a number of the Members on the Democratic side--said that if our allies who feel they have been protected by our nuclear umbrella become uncertain, we could be faced with a cascade of proliferation. Is that what we want? I know the President wants nonproliferation. I know that is what he wants. I am not attacking his goal. Throughout my remarks, I am raising the question of whether these goals will be furthered by the actions of this treaty and these policies or whether they will not. One final concern. The administration has made it clear that this treaty's nuclear reductions are just the first step in a long march to a nuclear-free world. Assistant Secretary Rose Gottemoeller, who negotiated the treaty, said in April: We will also seek to include non-strategic, non-deployed weapons in future reductions. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and former Ambassador Alexander Vershbow a few weeks ago said that the administration, in follow-on talks, will seek further reductions in strategic, nondeployed, and nonstrategic weapons. And the President has said that repeatedly. We Senators, in the end, only have our judgment. My best judgment tells me that if our weapons fall too low in numbers, such an event could inspire rogue and dangerous lesser nuclear powers to seek to become peer nuclear competitors to the United States--a dangerous event for the entire world. Thus, I must conclude that the Obama plan is to diminish the power and leadership of the United States. Carefully read, this is what the goal does. I think this conclusion cannot be disputed. The leader of the one nation that has been the greatest force for freedom and stability in the world, with our large nuclear arsenal, is displaying a naivete beyond imagining. Since this treaty is a calculated step in the President's plan to achieve dangerous and unacceptable policies, this treaty must not be ratified. The treaty and the policy behind it must be rejected. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.