To rescind $120 billion in Federal spending by consolidating duplicative government programs, cutting wasteful Washington spending, and returning billions of dollars of unspent money.

INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Franken pertaining to the introduction of S. 2952
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. FRANKEN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3308 to Amendment No. 3299

(Purpose: To reduce the deficit by establishing 5-year discretionary
spending caps)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. SESSIONS. The amendment is proposed by myself and Senators
McCaskill and Kyl.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself, Mrs.
McCaskill, and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 3308
to amendment No. 3299.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, our fathers and forefathers made heroic
sacrifices so that we one day might enjoy the blessings of liberty and
prosperity. Indeed, we have had prosperity through much of our
country's history. Their courage during World War II changed the world,
making possible the greatest run of economic growth in history. The
character and courage they displayed remains an inspiration to us. And
there are important lessons to be learned from the way this ``greatest
generation'' faced adversity.
We have recently been put to the test ourselves. We were--and in many
ways continue to be--faced with a national crisis in the form of a
historic and severe recession. So what did we do? We could have learned
from President Reagan and Paul Volcker, a Democrat who was then Federal
Reserve Chairman and is now working with President Obama. They took the
political heat in the short run so the free market could correct itself
and emerge stronger on the other side.
Instead, I think we flinched. We tried to limit the immediate pain by
mortgaging our children's future. We borrowed hundreds of billions of
dollars to finance our standard of living today. We took money from the
future so we can spend it today. We tried desperately to mitigate the
downturn of a huge economy, even when we know economies are cyclical
and do have booms and busts.
Every penny we spent on the stimulus package--$800 billion--and other
special spending was borrowed and must be paid back. In truth though,
there is no plan to pay the debt back--only to pay the soaring interest
for as far in the future as we can see. So this is not an academic
problem, nor is it just a question of public financing and governmental
roles.
As former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said about our debt
in December--and I think it is a stunning statement--

The challenge to contain this threat is more urgent than at
any time in our history. Our Nation has never before had to
confront so formidable a fiscal crisis as is now visible just
over the horizon.

The policies adopted by Congress and the President have set the
Nation now on a dangerous course of spending and borrowing. The budget
crisis we face is so severe, the mountain of debt so high, that it
threatens to undermine the foundation, as Mr. Greenspan said, of our
economic strength and our prosperity. This is reality.
For the first time in our Nation's history, our generation stands to
bequeath to our children a nation that is less economically sound, less
fundamentally strong, and less secure than that which we inherited. And
it is not necessary. We can do better if we act today.
It would be an unthinkable tragedy and really a moral failure for us
to pass on a less strong country. We have responsibilities not just to
our own people today but to those who will follow us in the years to
come, and we would have no one else to blame but ourselves.
The numbers tell a grim story. In fiscal year 2009, our government
spent $1.4 trillion more than it took in through revenues. That is the
largest deficit in our Nation's history, dwarfing those of previous
years. Scaled to the budget of a typical family, the government
operated like a household making $50,000 but spending $83,000. That is
how much more spending we carried out than we had revenues.
Common sense tells us this is unsustainable, and almost every expert
you ask would use that very word:

[[Page S224]]

``unsustainable.'' Yet we expect to run deficits over the next decade
that average nearly $1 trillion annually--averaging that and not going
down. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in the 8th, 9th,
and 10th year, the deficit continues to increase.
By 2019, we will owe our creditors, including nations such as China
and Japan, more than $15 trillion--three times the total debt of
America that existed last year. In 2019, the interest payments we will
make on the debt we owe outside the government--the public debt to
foreign countries and individuals--will be $799 billion, almost $800
billion in one year. That will be up from $202 billion in interest
payments last year. $800 billion is about $200 billion more than we
spend on defense, and 20 times more than we spend on roads or
education. We currently spend about $40 billion a year on roads, and
this interest on the debt will cost us $800 billion a year in 10
years--a basis of a tripling of our debt.
That growing interest payment will crowd out our ability to fund
other important government services, and it will crowd out private
borrowers who will need to borrow to create jobs.
Given that we have embarked on such a spending spree, is it any
surprise that the first item on the Senate agenda this year is the
necessary bill, they say, to raise the debt limit to allow us to borrow
more money? We have hit the limit. The government has a limit on the
amount of debt it can hold by statute, such as a maximum amount on a
credit card. America's credit card has a $12.4 trillion limit on
internal and external debt and, incredibly we have maxed it out again.
It should be a dramatic thing to boost that debt limit, but,
interestingly, it has become routine.
This will be the seventh time we have done so in 5 years, and it is
troubling Americans. The public is rightly angry with Washington's
cavalier attitude toward spending. They know ``buy now; pay later''
catches up with you eventually. They know nothing comes from nothing.
The American people know that what Stanford University economist
Michael Boskin wrote in the Wall Street Journal is true. He said:

The explosion of spending, deficits, and debt foreshadows
even higher prospective taxes on work, savings, investment
and employment. That not only will damage our economic future
but is harming jobs and growth now.

The American people know that taxes are going to go up, a fact
confirmed by David Walker, former Comptroller General and GAO head. He
testified recently that taxes would need to double by 2040 to keep up
with our current commitments.
The American people have made it clear they reject the philosophy of
ever increasing debt. They reject taking on such a burden. Why? Because
they know it threatens the strength of the American economy. They know
it is a cloud over our efforts to rebound economically, and they want
us to stop. They want us to stop.
To my colleagues, I ask: How much clearer does that message have to
be? I do not think anyone doubts it. The good news is, many Senators
are worried on both sides of the aisle. They are concerned about what
we are doing, and they know we need to do better, and they are
listening to their constituents. They will have an opportunity this
week to do that by supporting this bipartisan legislation I have
offered.
I see my colleague Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri in the
Chamber, who is a cosponsor of this legislation that will limit the
growth of spending. So it is a simple amendment. There are no strings
attached. It as a rare opportunity to impose budget discipline on a
Congress that is notorious for not having any.
That is what makes people angry. Politicians talk a good game but
nothing seems to change. But when it comes down to it, the politicians
always seem to find a way to spend more, and the taxpayers end up
holding the bill. So this amendment would help change that. It would
impose, first, binding limits on the 40 percent of Federal spending we
control each year, discretionary spending. The amendment would put into
law the spending levels approved in the fiscal year 2010 congressional
budget, which a majority of the Senate supported. It is basically the
Democratic Congress's budget. It had certain limits over 5 years.

What we are saying is if you exceed those limits, then you would be
violating this amendment, which seeks to control and avoid that. Those
spending levels include only our budget increases that are averaging
about 2 percent a year annually over 5 years. Contrast that with the
12-percent increases we saw last year in nondefense discretionary
appropriations, and the 10 percent the year before.
Factoring in the stimulus, government spending on nondefense accounts
actually soared by 57 percent, while State and local governments were
tightening their belts, some cutting expenses.
Each year we increase spending it gets built into the baseline of our
budget for the next year, and when we have an increase in the next
year, it is an increase on a higher baseline, and it goes up
exponentially.
For example, last year, on one bill, the defense bill, there was
tacked on an $18 billion expenditure for various projects that were not
paid for within the budget. It was added, paid for with debt--money we
had to borrow. If we do that each year, if we add another $18 billion
through that kind of budget-busting activity, it would cost the
taxpayers an extra $1 trillion over a decade. It is hard to believe,
but that is true. Mr. President, $18 billion one year goes into the
baseline; the next year you add another $18 billion, and it is not $18
billion, it is $36 billion more than you would have spent had the first
one not been spent.
I am convinced we can do better. This amendment is an important step.
Second, the amendment would require 67 votes--two-thirds of the
Senate--to waive the binding caps. In other words, if we set these
caps, we can waive them if there is an emergency. But it takes two-
thirds to do so. Two-thirds of the Senate is a strong threshold that
will keep these caps in place except in times of true emergency.
Finally, this amendment complements efforts to rein in mandatory
spending programs that are expected to be insolvent in coming years.
Social Security runs a surplus now. Medicare did so until the last few
years. Those surpluses are being spent in our discretionary accounts.
So these programs have little to do with our record deficits. It is
discretionary spending, up until recently, that has driven the entirety
of our debt.
Deficits for the most part come from discretionary spending, and this
statutory caps idea I have proposed is tested and proven. The Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990 included similar provisions that kept the
growth of Federal spending low for 12 years. Its provisions were
extended in 1997 because people found they were working. Congress felt
they were working.
All in all, these budget rules helped to achieve four balanced
budgets for 4 consecutive years, from 1998 to 2001. The key component
of that, I truly believe, was these statutory caps on spending that
were passed during that period.
Many currently serving Senators were in this Chamber in the 1990s and
recognized the necessity. In 1997, 28 currently serving Democrats, for
example, voted for these provisions, including many of the Democratic
leaders in the Senate today. I submit that those budget rules are even
more needed today.
As Mr. Greenspan said, we have never faced such a fiscal crisis
looming just over the horizon.
I am pleased a number of organizations known for their knowledge and
concern about deficits have recognized the merit of this proposal,
including the National Taxpayers Union, Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget, the Heritage Foundation, and the Concord Coalition.
Budget experts Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served under a Republican
administration; Alice Rivlin, who served under the Clinton
administration at CBO; and Alan Viard also back the plan. President
Obama, we learned today is now talking about a 3-year freeze on some
discretionary spending. This legislation would only help him achieve
that goal because he can make a speech and he can propose it to
Congress, but it doesn't necessarily become law. If he supports this
and works to support the statement that we understand he will make in
the State of the

[[Page S225]]

Union Address, this legislation would be a firewall to make sure his
promise isn't broken.
I say this to my colleagues: We have a budget crisis. It is a
calamity so profound that it threatens our economic security. Americans
across the country--in red States and blue States--get it. They are
deeply concerned about the direction in which we are headed. They know
the crushing debt we are incurring will weaken our country, and it will
restrict the opportunities our children will have. They are making
their voices heard.
A vote against this amendment would be a suggestion that a Senator is
not serious about maintaining our budget caps but is looking for ways
to bust the budget, get around the budget, and spend more.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation as a strong act of
fiscal responsibility that will have a good impact. In fact, I am
confident it would send a message to the financial community that we
are beginning to get our house in order.
While I would like to go further and be more frugal in some of our
behavior around here--and I do believe we are going to have to go
further than this--this amendment will ensure that the limits on
spending made last year in the budget passed by this Congress will not
be exceeded. It will be a firewall that will save us from our excesses.
It will begin to restore financial responsibility to our Nation, a
commodity of which we are in desperately short supply.
I see Senator McCaskill. She has cast a number of tough votes to
question reckless spending since I have observed her in the Senate. I
appreciate her leadership and courage in speaking out on this issue. If
we do this, it will not solve all our problems, but I think it will
make a positive difference for us. It will allow increases as the
budget allows for some increases before the firewall kicks in. But it
also would make it very difficult to break the budget in any
significant way, unless we face a true emergency.
I yield the floor and I thank my colleague for her leadership on this
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I acknowledge my colleague, Senator
Sessions from Alabama, and welcome the opportunity to join him in an
attempt to restore some sanity in Congress about spending.
I come from a State where there is a requirement of a balanced
budget, although, over the last couple years, I am not sure how they
would have done that without incredible pain if it hadn't been for the
help the Federal Government sent them. There is no question that the
fact that we don't have to balance the budget in Washington has led to
some very bad habits.
I was thinking about spending over the weekend, as this week there
are a number of provisions we will debate that I have sponsored or am a
big supporter of, including the fiscal task force amendment which went
down this morning by a narrow vote, and obviously pay-go, which I have
been the lead Senate sponsor on over the last several months. These are
all things with which we are trying to fight something that you
encounter all the time as a parent. How much easier it is to say yes
than no. My kids hate when I give them that lecture because they are
always wanting me to say yes. I always say the easiest thing to do is
to say yes--yes, you can have that outfit; yes, you can take my car;
yes, you can go see your friends, even though I am not sure you
finished whatever chores you had around the house. It is always easier
to say I will go along with it, it is a good cause.
That is what happens around here. It is not like we are spending on
evil stuff. We are spending on stuff we believe in--education,
highways, our parks, our military--and we are spending on things that
make it even harder to say no.
The time has come that we all have to feel the pain of saying no. We
all have to be willing to suffer the political consequences of saying
no. That is why this amendment is such an important step in the right
direction.
I want to be honest about this because we have a tendency to make
things bigger than they are. This isn't going to make a dramatic change
in the deficit or the debt. I am not sure how many Americans have
focused on the difference between the two, but they are two different
things, and it will not make a huge difference. People need to remember
that if we took out all discretionary spending and decided we were not
going to spend another dime on education, highways or any of the things
we decide on spending every year, we will still have a massive deficit
problem. We don't fix the deficit by passing this amendment. We don't
fix the deficit by saying we are not going to even do discretionary
domestic spending anymore. So this is not a fix-all. Do you know what
it does? It begins to get us well. It is a little like earmarking. Is
earmarking the huge problem? No. But it is similar to a fever; it is a
symptom of a disease. This will help us get well.
It will be a step toward recovery if we can pass this amendment to
freeze our discretionary spending. I am so pleased the White House has
called for a freeze. I think this is a wonderful bipartisan moment. I
think we are all hankering for a good bipartisan moment right now. I
hope we are all hankering for a good bipartisan moment. I got worried
this morning on the vote on the fiscal task force because it seemed
like there might have been some political games being played. I don't
know about anybody else, but I am hankering for a good bipartisan
moment. This ought to be one, where Republicans and Democrats set aside
who looks good and who looks bad, who gets credit and who gets the
blame, and do something we need to do.
We used to have a freeze and we used to have pay-go. They were both
allowed to expire in 2002. I wasn't here. I am not sure why they were
allowed to expire. Did Congress all of a sudden think we don't need
pay-go anymore or we don't need limits on discretionary spending
anymore because we are out of the woods when it comes to the deficit or
debt? I am not sure why that happened. I know most of the folks who let
those things expire wish they could take it back. I bet most of the
folks who did voting for major entitlement programs without paying for
them during that time--I bet they wish they could take it back because
now we are in a real mess.
The first and most important step to get out of this mess is to vote
to control our spending. I am hopeful this will be passed by a wide
margin. Some of my friends on the left have said the last thing in the
world we should do now is limit spending, that government is the answer
in this difficult recession. I voted for the stimulus, and I think the
tax cuts in the stimulus, which don't get talked about enough, and the
help to the States, which doesn't get talked about enough, and the jobs
that will be created this year are very important to the progress we
have made in terms of climbing out of the economic hole we found
ourselves in a year ago.
But we will not get out of this recession on the back of government
spending. If we decide it is just about government spending during this
recession, we are dealing a very bad hand to our grandchildren.
I hope this amendment passes. I hope it is not even controversial. I
am so pleased the President is on board, and I am pleased that so many
members of the Republican party are on board. Let's take this important
step, and then let's live up to it during the appropriations process.
Let's realize that pet project at home that we know we can get because
we can get an earmark--maybe this is the year to say no and push back
from the table and say all those pet projects, those earmarks, are not
the right signal we need to send to the American people this year.
I thank my colleague from Alabama and Senator Kyl, who were
cosponsors on this. I look forward to wide bipartisan support. I look
forward to enthusiastic applause tomorrow night in the President's
State of the Union Address, when he lays out his freeze on spending. We
are all on board now. Let's make it happen.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Judd Gregg, former chairman of the Budget Committee and ranking member,
be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

[[Page S226]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague for her fine remarks.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3303 to Amendment No. 3299

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amended be set aside and I send up amendment No. 3303.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 3303 to Amendment No. 3299.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Monday, January 25, 2010,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be divided in the
form which I now send to the desk.
I ask at this time that division I of the original amendment be made
the pending amendment.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. COBURN. I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator from Oklahoma
still has the floor.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, while the Parliamentarian is doing the
work that is necessary at this time, I thought I would spend a few
minutes talking about this amendment in the interest of saving some
time.
We have a significant problem in front of us as a Nation. We have
before us an underlying bill that raises the debt that nobody in this
room, save the pages, will ever pay a penny toward reducing--nobody
except the pages and their generation will pay a penny toward reducing.
This request for increasing the debt limit of $1.9 trillion, I remind
my colleagues, is $200 billion more than the entire Federal Government
spent in the year 1999, 10 years ago. So we, in one fell swoop, in 1
year, we are going to increase the debt by $200 billion more than what
the entire Federal Government spent 10 years ago.
The whole purpose behind this amendment is a wake-up call to say:
Wait a minute, the Congress, in the last 2 years, under its leadership,
has increased spending 11.4 percent in 2009 and 11.4 percent this year,
not counting a stimulus bill and not counting omnibus bills that were
not paid for because they were declared an emergency.
If we add all that up, excluding the stimulus bill, we had a 28-
percent increase in the size of the Federal Government in the last 2
years--just in the last 2 years. At that rate, the size of the Federal
Government doubles over a 5-year period.
What these amendments are designed to do is to get us doing what
every American family is doing today; that is, starting to make some of
the hard choices about where we have excess, where we have
inefficiency, where we have duplication, and eliminate it because we
should not ask the American people to take on more debt when we know we
have at least $387 billion worth of waste, fraud, and duplication every
year in the Federal Government. Yet that is exactly what we are doing
with the underlying bill. We are taking on more debt and not doing
anything about the excessive spending or the waste, fraud, or
duplication.
The whole purpose behind coming to the floor is to say: Can we not,
in light of a 28-percent increase, cut 5 percent in terms of
discretionary spending that we just jacked up five times that amount
over the last 2 years? Can we not find 5 percent worth of waste? We
have identified specifically 640 programs that are duplicative of one
another in the Federal Government. We have identified waste. When we go
to find out, when we ask the GAO or the Congressional Research Service
to help us with this, do you know what they tell us? We cannot; it is
too big. We cannot tell you where all the duplication is. That is our
own research bodies saying they cannot tell us where it is too big.
This amendment puts a stop to that. It mandates that we in the
future, every year, will get a report from the GAO on every program
within the Federal Government that duplicates another program and what
their recommendations are to streamline or change it.
The reason it is easy to borrow or easy to raise taxes is because we
fail to do the hard work of eliminating the spending waste. We just had
the Senator from Alabama wanting to put on some caps. That is not going
to be adopted. We know it.
The reason I divided this amendment is because my colleagues will
take one segment of it and say: Oh, I was for cutting 5 percent out of
the Federal budget, but I just did not agree with this one segment,
whether it be education or somewhere else, that we should not cut, and,
therefore, I voted against the whole amendment.
This puts the American people in the driver's seat, as far as their
Senators are concerned. We are going to get to see whether they agree
that we ought to continue to waste money; that we ought to steal it
from these pages and their generation and not do the hard work of
making a choice and putting things in terms of priority like every
American family is doing.
Every American family is doing that right now. They do not have an
unlimited credit card. They do not have the privilege of going to the
bank when they are tapped out and say: Just give me more money, like we
are getting ready to do on extending the debt limit.
The other thing that is in this is leading by example. The Senators
increased their budget by 5.8 percent this year. We reverse that. Most
of us can easily live within the budget we had last year--easily. So we
reverse the increase for the Senate back down to what it was last year.
We should not ask the rest of this government to make a sacrifice
that we are not willing to demonstrate by leading on the same issue.
This bill can be the first step in a reality check of getting the
Congress back aligned with where the American people are, as far as
spending.
Just a year ago, in January of 2009, the national debt was $10.6
trillion. Today the national debt is $12.2994 trillion. Forty-three
cents of every dollar we spent last year we borrowed, and we are going
to do exactly that or worse this next year unless we wake up, unless we
come to our senses.
You can have all the arguments you want, but nobody in America
believes the Federal Government is not wasteful. Nobody believes it is
good enough to just freeze a small portion of discretionary spending.
What Americans believe is we need to cut spending. We need to cut out
the waste, cut out the duplication, and cut out the fraud. We need
efficiency where we can generate efficiency. We need to eliminate
duplication where there is duplication.
My friend, President Obama, when he was campaigning said: I promise
to spend taxpayer money wisely and to eliminate wasteful redundancy. We
are going to help him with that. That is what this amendment does. In
640 programs where there is duplication, we are going to allow an
incentive for each department to get rid of it. We are not mandating
they have to get rid of it. We are saying: You should do the review.
You should take this money, and you should eliminate the duplications.
What you need from us to do that, we will give you. But we are giving
you the authority to do that with these amendments.
Let me quote from President Obama:

Too often Federal departments take on functions or services
that are already being done or could be done elsewhere within
the Federal Government more effectively. The result is
unnecessary redundancy and the inability of the Federal
Government to benefit from economies of scale and integrated
streamlined operations.

He is right. So now we are going to give the Senators a chance to
support his statement and his position.
Nothing has been done in the last year to accomplish that. As a
matter of fact, the President sent program after program that he wanted
to get rid of. He said they are not effective, they do not work, they
are duplicative, and they are not efficient. What did we do?

[[Page S227]]

We did not eliminate a one of them. We just kept funding them. So we
cannot claim that the problems lie with the President. The problems do
not lie with the President. The problems lie with the elected body of
Congress in not making the hard, difficult choices of putting a
priority on what is most important and taking the time to do the
oversight and explain to the American people why we ought to have the
programs consolidated. We may have a goal we want to accomplish and
help the American people with, but we certainly ought to do it in the
most efficient and effective manner we can.
The other reason to consider this amendment is to think about what is
getting ready to happen to us. What is getting ready to happen to us
over the next 10 years is we are going to accrue another $9 trillion in
debt if we do not start this process with this amendment today. We are
going to accrue another $9 trillion. Of that $9 trillion, $4.8 trillion
of it is going to be interest. It is going to be interest costs on the
debt. We are going to borrow money to pay the interest on the money
that we borrow. It does not have to be that way.
My colleagues will come down and say: The big problem is the
entitlement programs. There is no question that is two-thirds of our
problem. But the easy thing to fix now and saves billions, if not
trillions, of dollars on is the discretionary portion of the budget
that we do have control over.
We always hear the excuse: That is not the big problem. The reason it
is not the big problem is because politicians enamor themselves with
people at home by spending money we do not have on things we do not
need that are not truly a legitimate role of the Federal Government.
The family budget is getting smaller, and the Federal Government is
getting bigger. That is just exactly the opposite of what ought to be
happening in this country today. Inflation is near zero, but yet we are
increasing spending, like I said, 11.7 percent last year. That does not
include the supplemental emergency spending and does not have any
connection at all with the stimulus bill. That is what we did with the
individual budgets across the Federal Government.
When I come down and make the case for cutting back 5 percent of
that, which ends up being $120 billion, nobody should be opining: My
goodness, we are going to tear things up. But we are going to hear
that. We are going to hear all the reasons we cannot do what I am
proposing to do.
America is not going to buy that anymore. They are not buying it
anymore, and they should not buy it.
The other thing this amendment will do is it will give us 30 days to
come back and assess other areas where we can cut more spending. People
in this body think that is hard. It is not hard. Let me give an example
of where we can save $80 billion a year in one program.
At a minimum, there is $100 billion of fraud in Medicare a year. We
do not have an effective strategy, like any other organization outside
of government, to limit the defrauding that goes on in Medicare. We
pay, and then we try to chase people we should not have paid.
Senator LeMieux from Florida and others have multiple ideas on how we
could take that $100 billion and over the next 6 months save $30
billion or $40 billion of that. That is $30 billion or $40 billion each
year over the next 10 years. That comes out to $\1/2\ trillion, which
cuts down that $9 trillion in additional debt we are going to be
encumbering upon our children. Last year, this country's debt grew $4.2
billion a day. We didn't do anything about that except spend more
money, so this year it is going to accrue at $4.3 billion a day. That
is how much we are going to spend that we don't have.

Isn't it time that we start facing the situation as it is rather than
the way we would like it to be? The cold hard facts are that we have a
short timeframe--4 to 5 years at most--to get our house back in order.
Now is the time to start. It is not next year, it is not next month; it
is right now--right now, when the American people may or may not be
focused on the fact that we are going to authorize an additional $1.9
trillion worth of borrowing. You can't even write that many zeros down
and have a comprehension of how much it is. At the same time, we don't
do anything about solving the problem.
Quite frankly, Congress has a dependency issue. We are addicted. We
are addicted to spending. We are addicted to the age-old adage that if
I spend enough money, I can go home and tell people how great I am, not
ever telling them I am spending their money and their kids' money but
claiming I am looking out for them.
The only way you really look out for America is to secure America
into the future, and we have not been doing that. It hasn't been done
under the Republican watch, hasn't been done under the Democratic
watch. What has happened is the same old same old of continuing to
ignore the problem and not taking the heat for making the tough choices
that will put our country back on the track on which it belongs--a
track that will secure a future for our children and grandchildren,
that will embrace the heritage that made this country great. What was
that heritage? That heritage was sacrifice. In this country, all of
us--many--are sacrificing now, and many in the future are going to have
to sacrifice.
Others will come down to the floor and they will say: Well, Coburn,
all you want to do is cut spending; you don't really want to solve the
problem. Well, the first part of solving the problem is cutting the
spending and recognizing that the walls don't fall down if you cut 5
percent out of the discretionary spending in our budget. As a matter of
fact, very few people will ever notice $120 billion coming out of the
Federal Government on these discretionary programs because they will
just go to a different grant program that does the same thing and get
it there.
Let me go into some of the facts because many of us don't understand.
Here are some examples:
There are 14 programs administered by the U.S. Department of
Education related to foreign exchanges and designed to increase
opportunity for students to study abroad. There is nothing wrong
inherently with wanting our students to study abroad, to gain that
perspective and to gain that education, but why 14 different programs?
Why not one? Why not 1 program and save all the administrative costs of
the other 13? Why not do that? Because somebody may not have their name
on a program? The fact is, nobody knew that until we discovered it in
the last 4 weeks.
There are more than 44 job-training programs administered by 9
different Federal agencies across the bureaucracy, costing $30 billion
a year. Forty-four Federal job-training programs? Tell me why we need
44. Maybe 4 to hit different areas in different situations but not 44
and not through 9 different Federal agencies that are all trying to do
the same thing and competing to throw out money.
What about 69 early education programs administered by 9 different
Federal agencies. Sixty-nine, why would we tolerate that? Why would we
continue with the status quo? Now is the time to make changes.
One of my favorites is that we have 105 Federal programs supporting
science, technology, engineering, and math--105 different programs
where we support that--funding over $3 billion a year. I agree we ought
to encourage it, we ought to stimulate it, we ought to support it
because we know we have to be competitive in the future, but do we
really need 105 different Federal Government programs? The answer is,
absolutely not. We don't. But because we don't know what is there, we
continue to do the same.
As a matter of fact, there is going to be a Judiciary markup on
Thursday that has a new program in it--supposedly new--and the authors
of the bill have no idea that we already have a Federal program that
does the same thing. That is why the important key component of this
global amendment is to make sure the GAO tells us what is out there,
what we need to do, and how we need to go about it. We may need some
redundancy, but we don't need 105 times redundancy, we don't need 30
times redundancy, we don't need 44 times redundancy, and we don't need
69 times redundancy. As a matter of fact, when we have all these
programs, the States have to hire all these different people to
understand all the different programs so they can make sure they get
their fair share. We could actually save the States a ton of money if
they

[[Page S228]]

only had one-stop shopping--if, in fact, it is a truly legitimate
government function.
The amendment also rescinds unobligated discretionary funds that have
been available for more than 2 consecutive fiscal years. So it doesn't
hurt the agencies if the money has been there and they haven't spent
it. As a matter of fact, we are giving them so much money, they can't
spend it all. We have seen unobligated balances go up because they
can't get it out the door. And when we are pushing them to get it out
the door, guess what happens to efficiency and accuracy and
effectiveness of those programs. It goes way down.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, at year end 2009,
that is, September 30, there was $657 billion sitting in unobligated
funds. Some of that is military, some of that is war funds, some of
that is VA. We exempt war funds and we exempt VA. We exempt DOD, but we
shouldn't because there is $50 billion a year in waste in the Pentagon
that can easily be demonstrated.
So we direct the GAO to identify those duplicative programs and
report to Congress on the findings.
Madam President, may I make an inquiry of the Chair? Has the status
of our division been decided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is not divisible as a
matter of right because the Senate has entered into a unanimous consent
agreement limiting the universe of amendments on this measure.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the Senators from Alabama and Oklahoma
have offered that amendment to the debt limit resolution. As these
amendments address matters primarily for the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Committee, I will defer to the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee to address those amendments momentarily.

Nomination of Ben Bernanke

Madam President, in the meantime, on another matter, I wish to say I
strongly support the nomination of Chairman Ben Bernanke to his second
term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Last August, President Obama announced his intention to renominate
Chairman Bernanke for a second term. There is little debate that our
financial system has been through one of the most tumultuous times
since the Great Depression. I strongly support President Obama's
decision to renominate Ben Bernanke and believe he has the expertise to
continue to lead this country out of one of the worst economic
downturns in history.
Chairman Bernanke graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University,
earning a bachelor's degree in economics. He continued his studies at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received a Ph.D. in
economics. He then had the good sense to head to Stanford, my alma
mater, where he taught economics for several years at the Graduate
School of Business. After heading back to Princeton University, he
quickly rose through the academic ranks to become chairman of the
Princeton Economics Department. His groundbreaking economic work on the
Great Depression helped increase our understanding of that calamity and
prepared him well to tackle our recent disaster. He has a strong record
of public service, including work as a visiting scholar at several
Federal Reserve banks.
In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed him to serve on the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In 2005, President Bush
appointed him Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers.
In 2006, President Bush appointed him Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
The Senate confirmed his nomination by voice vote. After his
appointment to three posts by President Bush, Ben Bernanke was
renominated as Federal Reserve Chairman in 2009 by President Obama.
At this point, I might point out that if any Senator had any problems
with the reappointment of Chairman Bernanke, they certainly knew when
his term expired and they should have conveyed those views to President
Obama, and conveyed them strongly if that was their view, so that
President Obama would have had an opportunity to appoint somebody else
if that was his choice. It is my understanding that virtually no
Senator complained to President Obama about the renomination of
Chairman Bernanke before the nomination was sent to the Senate.
In his nearly 4 years as Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke has
demonstrated he is worthy of another term. Facing the worst financial
calamity in nearly 70 years and relying on his keen insight into the
origins of financial panics, he successfully worked with the previous
and current administrations to ensure that the economy of the United
States and the world survived the crisis of 2008.
Again, his dissertation was on the Great Depression. This is a man
who understands the Great Depression and probably had some pretty good
ideas of how to prevent that from occurring. Averting disaster is not
something that usually earns you accolades or parades. ``It could have
been worse'' is not your typical commendation. But there is no doubt
that without Chairman Bernanke's leadership, our economy would have
been much worse off.
Time will tell how the history of this crisis is written, but
economists and experts believed then and still today that the Federal
Government could not stand by and let the financial system collapse.
Liquidity in the markets evaporated. Small businesses could not obtain
the day-to-day cash to buy inventory or make payroll. Foreclosures
increased from hundreds to hundreds of thousands. Americans across the
country witnessed their retirement savings dwindling before their eyes.
Confidence in the system as a whole vanished.
Beginning in 2008, Chairman Bernanke began to take a series of steps
to walk us back from the brink of disaster. The Federal Reserve cut
interest rates early and aggressively in an attempt to inject liquidity
into the markets. I might point out that there were some who counseled
the opposite action; that is, those most concerned about inflation.
Perhaps Bernanke went too far in trying to inject liquidity back into
the markets, but that is what he believed was necessary in order to get
the economy back on track. The Fed established lending facilities to
provide much needed funding. Last year, the Fed, in conjunction with
the Department of Treasury, established the Term Asset-Backed
Securities Loan Facility, TALF, to finance more than 4 million consumer
and small business loans. That is sometimes forgotten, but that is
something he did. At a time when conditions were changing daily and
sometimes hourly, Chairman Bernanke did not hesitate to take bold and
necessary steps to avoid total collapse of our economy.
Madam President, 20/20 hindsight will always reveal things we would
have done differently. With such aggressive and unprecedented action
comes criticism and judgment.
Without a doubt, the Federal Reserve System deserves a share of the
blame for fostering the conditions that led us to the precipice, but as
this crisis was systemic, so, too, were its flaws.
On that point, I might say there are a lot of agencies that probably
should be blamed or held accountable for some of the missteps or
failure to foresee the crisis occurring. One that comes to my mind is
the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities and Exchange
Commission either did not have jurisdiction or didn't ask for
jurisdiction or did not exercise jurisdiction over a lot of the
nonbanks that were creating a lot of these fancy derivatives and other
instruments. I can name many of them. I think we all know who they are.
It was a lack of effort by the SEC. I think the SEC was derelict in not
being much more aggressive at that time.
There are a lot of areas where fingers can be pointed. One can be the
Congress. Where were the oversight committees at that time? What were
the questions they were asking? What were they doing?
I think, frankly, that mistakes were made, many of them, beginning
with the subprime mortgage crisis and working all the way up to
mortgage

[[Page S229]]

brokers packaging and reselling loans and securitizing those loans and
then all the other instruments that were developed at the time, and
very high leverage. That was a big mistake made before Ben Bernanke was
head of the Fed.
It is more apparent than ever that we must pass strong and
comprehensive regulatory reform, to crack down on risky financial
derivatives, properly regulate the shadow banking system, and ensure
consumers are adequately protected. In his confirmation hearing,
Chairman Bernanke stated that such a crisis ``must prompt financial
institutions and regulators alike to undertake unsparing self-
assessments of their past performance.''
Chairman Bernanke is doing just that. The Federal Reserve has already
undergone significant regulatory changes, and he is committed to
working with me and my colleagues in Congress to put in place proper
oversight and transparency to see that we are never again faced with
the peril we have witnessed over the past 2 years.
But as Emerson once said, ``[b]lame is safer than praise.'' I commend
Chairman Bernanke and his team at the Federal Reserve for acting in a
time of such uncertainty. There is still much that must be done to get
our economy back on track and Americans back to work. I believe that
Chairman Bernanke and the Federal Reserve will continue efforts to
create jobs and help middle class families. I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting Chairman Bernanke's nomination for his second
term, as he works to restore confidence and prosperity in our economy.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman.) Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 3303

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Coburn
amendment to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending. Before my
colleague from Oklahoma leaves the floor, I know he has to go, but I
have to pose a question for the Senator from Oklahoma. We have a
listing in the Senator's amendment of the many duplicative programs.
Have we had a study that would indicate how many government employees
are engaged in administering these duplicative programs?
Mr. COBURN. No. To answer the Senator's question, we do not even know
how many duplicative programs there are out there. These are the 640 we
found looking over a 4-week period.
But when we asked GAO or the Congressional Research Service about
this, what they say is the task is too big. They do not even know if
they can accomplish the task, which goes to the enormity of the problem
we face.
I mentioned on the Senate floor earlier, we have a markup tomorrow in
the Judiciary Committee for a new program, and it is duplicative of an
existing program. But those offering the amendment do not even know it.
So it shows we have to stop and reassess. Part of this amendment is
creating a mandate that the GAO has to advise us on that.
Mr. McCAIN. I do believe that at least we ought to, over time, make
an attempt to ascertain the numbers of employees who are in these
duplicative government programs. It is really startling--if the
American people knew of the fact that there are so many duplicative
efforts and different agencies of the government trying to accomplish
the same mission.
Before I go much further, I would like to mention, I have the
information that tomorrow night the President will propose a spending
freeze for discretionary spending with the exception of defense,
veterans affairs, and homeland security. I applaud that move on the
part of the President.
I think, from the conclusions I have reached so far, it would save
some $15 billion next year and perhaps $200 billion over time. We are
trying to ascertain exactly what that is.
But I do not see how the President, at the same time that he is
recommending a spending freeze that would save some $12 or $15 or $20
billion next year, at the same time to be proposing a stimulus package,
another one, that could be $80 or $100 billion. That is not fiscal
discipline.
The House, the other body, passed, before we went out of session, a
jobs bill that was somewhere around $100 billion, as I understand it. I
understand the other side of the aisle is working on a package of about
$80 billion. Well, look, let's stop the spending now. Let's stop the
spending now.
So if we want to be sincere about stopping the spending that is
unnecessary and unneeded, then we certainly should discard the idea
that we need another massive stimulus, particularly in light of the
fact that by any estimation, including the prediction of the
President's economic advisers that if we passed the last stimulus
package, unemployment would be at 8 percent.
So this proposal about a spending freeze would have a lot more
credibility with me if we said we are going to stop additional spending
this year that would also add to the burgeoning national debt.
The Coburn amendment is an important one. The Coburn amendment is
best appreciated by the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves. In
a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle, they noted:

Our spending excesses, as most every American knows, are
increasingly financed by foreign sources led by China. In
all, about $4.5 trillion in U.S. debt is held by foreigners
and nearly $800 billion of that is held by the Beijing
government.

So we will increase the debt limit, and who is going to buy that
debt? Apparently, the Chinese are buying a lot of it since they own,
according to the Houston Chronicle, about $800 billion, and foreign
countries own about $3.5 trillion.
On December 16, the Wall Street Journal wrote:

Our view is there is good and bad public borrowing. In the
1980s, Federal deficits financed a military build-up that
ended the Cold War leading to an actual peace dividend in the
1990s of 3 percent of GDP, as well as tax cuts that ended the
stagflation of the 1970s, and began 25 years of prosperity.
Those were high-return investments. Today's debt is financing
what exactly? The TARP money did undergird the financial
system for a time, and is now being repaid. But most of the
rest has been spent on a political wish list of public
programs ranging from unemployment insurance to wind turbines
to tax credits for golf carts. Borrowing for such low-return
purposes makes America poor in the long run.

So if we are increasing the debt limit, and the Chinese and other
countries are going to buy that debt, and we are spending money in the
stimulus package that has shown very little return on the massive $787
billion investment, then should we not try Dr. Coburn's method and
support his amendment which would basically prevent us from having to
increase the debt limit?
This amendment of Dr. Coburn's would rescind $120 billion in
spending, 5 percent from each agency of government, other than the
Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs; directing the agencies to
consolidate more than 650 duplicative government programs; rescind
unobligated discretionary funds available for more than 2 consecutive
fiscal years. Most Americans would be astonished to know that there are
still tax dollars sitting out there which have been appropriated and
not been spent for more than 2 years, sometimes several years.
Directing GAO to identify duplicative government programs and report
the findings to Congress would render the debt limit increase in the
underlying bill null and void. It is $1.9 trillion.
Let's just look at a few of the duplicative Federal programs that are
out there. A 2004 report by a nonprofit research group listed 21
Federal programs across multiple agencies, many at Health and Human
Services that funded childhood obesity programs either as the main
focus or as one component of the Federal program.
Child obesity is a serious issue in America. Do we need 21 separate
programs to address the issue? Would not we be more efficient if we had
a single program instead of spreading them out amongst different
Federal agencies?
There are 14 programs administered by the U.S. Department of
Education related to foreign exchanges and designed to increase the
opportunities for

[[Page S230]]

study abroad, 14 programs. According to a 2003 GAO report, the Federal
Government funds more than 44 job training programs administered by
nine different Federal agencies across the Federal bureaucracy at a
cost of $30 billion.
According to data from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 14
departments within the Federal Government and 49 independent agencies
operate exchanges and study abroad programs.
A 2009 GAO report found 69 early education programs administered by
nine different agencies. There are over 30 Federal programs that
provide financial assistance to students to support postsecondary
education at a cost to the taxpayer of over $30 billion every year.
According to a May 2007 report in the Academic Competitiveness
Council, there are 105 Federal programs supporting STEM education with
aggregate funding of $3.2 billion in 2006. You will note that I am not
even talking about millions or hundreds of millions; we are talking
about billions.
Here is one. There are at least 17 offender reentry programs across
five Federal agencies, different Federal agencies, costing the
taxpayers over $250 million annually.
A 2005 GAO study found there are a total of 23 Federal housing
programs targeted or have special features for the elderly, 23 Federal
housing programs that target or have special features for the elderly.
There are at least nine programs at the USDA tasked with researching
and developing biofuels, costing taxpayers nearly $300 million
annually. Over $800 million was included in the stimulus bill for these
initiatives.
The Federal Government oversees at least 15 different preservation
programs costing taxpayers nearly $100 million annually.
There are at least 28 Federal programs totaling over $5 billion that
support job training and employment.
Here we are, with an outstanding public debt well over $12.3
trillion. The estimate for this year is the largest in history. The
estimated population of the United States is over 307.6 million people.
Therefore, each U.S. citizen's share of this debt is approximately
$40,100. That is $40,000 for every man, woman, and child in this
country. That is shameful, shameful spending that has laid this debt on
future generations of Americans. The greatness of America is based on
the tradition that one generation has passed off to the next generation
a nation that is better off than the one they inherited. What kind of a
nation are we going to hand off to the next generation of Americans
with a debt to the Chinese of $800 billion, a debt of over $3.5
trillion held by foreigners, and the debt goes on and on and on with no
end in sight.
Why should we not try Dr. Coburn's method? Why should we not attempt
to do something different rather than raising the debt limit every time
we have spent so much we have to raise it again?
Let's look at what we spent last year alone: $787 billion on the so-
called stimulus bill which amounts to $1.1 trillion, if you calculate
the interest; $700 billion in TARP to bail out the banks and other
ailing financial institutions; $410 billion for the Omnibus
appropriations bill, a package of 9 appropriations bills rolled
together, which contained over 9,000 unrequested, unnecessary, run-of-
the-mill pork-barrel earmarks; $450 billion for the 2010 Omnibus
appropriations bill, a package of 6 bills rolled together, containing
5,000 unrequested earmarks. Let's put them together. In two bills last
year, one for 2009, the other for 2010, were at least 14,000 earmarks.
The Democratic leadership worked with the President to ram through a
$3.5 trillion budget resolution. We have spent $83 billion to bail out
the auto companies. There is still a chance that a $2.5 trillion health
reform bill may be passed by the other side.
Overall, domestic spending has increased by 14 percent over the last
fiscal year. Inflation has been practically zero for all intents and
purposes. But the spending has increased by 14 percent. Don't we get
it? Don't we see what we are doing to future generations of Americans?
Don't we see that a debt for $40,100 for every man, woman, and child in
America is unconscionable? Why don't we try the Coburn amendment before
we willy-nilly increase the debt limit by another $1.4 trillion? Why?
Why can't we at least make an effort?
One thing I know about Dr. Coburn, he researches his information
carefully. He has shown us we don't need to raise the debt limit and
give ourselves a green light to spend even more. We have before us an
opportunity. We can turn things around today. We can pass this
amendment and begin the hard work and make the tough decisions
necessary to put us on the path to fiscal solvency and national
prosperity.
Here we are with a bill before us to increase the debt limit which
would increase, then, the debt that every man, woman, and child in
America has, as we continue this almost unrestrained spending spree.
I have said to my colleagues for a long time--and I think it was
authenticated in Massachusetts recently--the American people are mad.
They are angry at the spending. They do not want to lay a huge debt on
future generations of Americans. They do not believe there is a shred
of fiscal responsibility in the Congress or the administration. I will
fairly note that this out-of-control spending was not invented with
this administration. Republicans, when they were in charge, let
spending get completely out of control. We betrayed our fiscal base. We
paid a heavy price for it, but we deserved to pay that price. Now is
the time to say stop, stop borrowing against our children and
grandchildren's futures. Stop putting ourselves in a precarious
situation, where the Chinese own so much of our national debt that they
have their hand on the throttle of the American economy.
I hasten to add, it is not in China's interest to hurt the American
economy. But it certainly can't be in our interest, in any way, to be
in that kind of fiscal jeopardy. We cannot do that--not to mention the
$3.5 trillion in debt held by foreigners.
I say to my colleagues, let's look at the Coburn amendment. It is
well thought out, well researched. Let's put the brakes on the
mortgaging of America's future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Christmas Day Terrorist Attack

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I had the benefit last week of attending
two different hearings on the attempted terrorist attack that took
place on Christmas Day. The first was in the Homeland Security
Committee and the second was in the Commerce Committee. One thing
became clear: There is a definite disconnect in this administration
about how to handle terrorists once they are captured. Over this last
weekend, Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the foiled
Christmas Day bomber terror attack. He has, once again, inserted
himself into the national security dialog in the United States.
I fear al-Qaida will have another opportunity to attack the United
States because of the fumbling of intelligence information that could
have been gathered on the Christmas Day bomber before his attempted
attack and subsequently from this terrorist after he was captured. But
this administration clearly dropped the ball. We know the Director of
National Intelligence, Dennis Blair; FBI Director Mueller; National
Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter; and the Homeland
Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, were not consulted about the
decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights and try him in
civilian courts. We know that as soon as this terrorist was told of his
right to remain silent, that is what he did. He stopped talking.
It is unfathomable that these individuals were not even consulted
before this hugely important decision was made. After the hearings
conducted last week and interviews over the weekend, it appears it was
ultimately the Attorney General who made the decision to read the
Miranda rights and place Abdulmutallab in the civilian court system.
However, there is a lot of ambiguity to show how this decision came to
be made. Were there any deliberations or meetings that occurred prior
to this decision? Was the President brought into this discussion? All

[[Page S231]]

these ambiguities need to be cleared up so we do not make the same
mistakes again.
As a member of one of the committees charged with oversight of
homeland security, I will be asking for a written response from the
administration on this issue.
Additionally, because the heads of government agencies charged with
making the decisions do not seem to be talking, I have joined with
several of my Senate colleagues to cosponsor legislation authored by
Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, the distinguished ranking member
and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. This legislation would
require the Attorney General to consult with the Director of National
Intelligence, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Defense prior to
the initiation of giving any terrorist Miranda rights or the initiation
of civilian criminal charges against a foreign person detained by the
U.S. Government on suspicion of any terrorist activities. The
legislation would also require, in the event of a disagreement amongst
these folks on whether such action should be initiated in civilian
criminal court, that the Attorney General not initiate such action
unless specifically directed by the President. I ask my other Senate
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this vital legislation.
A second thing we learned from last week's hearings was there is
confusion about when the high-value interrogation group or the HIG
should be convened to decide on whether to interrogate terrorists such
as Abdulmutallab or to interview them with their lawyers present.
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Homeland
Security Committee:

This unit was created exactly for this purpose--to make a
decision on whether a certain person who is detained should
be treated as a case for Federal prosecution or for some
other means.

The intelligence chief said the interrogation group was created by
the White House last year to handle overseas cases but will now be
expanded for domestic cases.
He said:

We did not invoke the HIG in this case. We should have.

Subsequently, we heard from the administration that this HIG unit
isn't even up and running yet.
My question is, How does the individual who is in charge of our
intelligence infrastructure not know the policy and procedures for
interrogating terrorists? Based on the testimony given last week, it
would seem we do not have a fully integrated and comprehensive method
for interrogating terrorists, whether they are captured abroad or here
at home. The capture and subsequent handling of terrorist Abdulmutallab
was bungled from the get-go. It is continuing to be bungled.
A week ago, I signed a letter to President Obama with a number of my
colleagues indicating that the decision to prosecute this terrorist in
civilian court has resulted in a missed opportunity to collect timely
intelligence. In order for the U.S. Government to fully understand
where we failed on Christmas Day, it is imperative we examine the
methods and means Abdulmutallab used to avoid detection.
As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our ability to gather this
information has been severely hampered by the decision to put this
terrorist almost immediately into the civilian court system. He now has
all the rights, protections, and privileges of American citizens. Make
no mistake about it, this decision to try Abdulmutallab as a U.S.
citizen, which he is not, as opposed to an enemy combatant will be a
detrimental impact on our ability to learn more about this failed
terrorist attack. Taking it a step further, this decision may very well
weaken our national security. Last week, the Republican leader
mentioned that a year ago the President, immediately after taking
office, decided to revise the Nation's interrogation policies and to
restrict the CIA's ability to question terrorists.
This was done by Executive order. While questioning the Director of
National Intelligence, I specifically asked if the Director believed
the classified interrogation methods used previously by our own
government were more effective than the current methods found in the
Army Field Manual that is publicly available for the terrorist to train
to.
One statement the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, made
during the Q-and-A portion of the hearing particularly caught my
attention. In response to a question from Senator Burris regarding al-
Qaida's ability to exploit open source intelligence, Admiral Blair
stated this--I am quoting, once again:

[T]he public discussion of the specifics of the defensive
measures we take are making it that much easier for people to
evade our defenses and come in . . . I think they are just
making the job of those who are working hard to try to defend
us that much harder. It costs the taxpayer that much more
money. And I wish people would just shut the hell up.

That is what he said.
So if keeping some of our airport security measures a secret makes it
harder for terrorists to evade them, shouldn't that same logic also
hold that keeping some of our interrogation measures classified also
makes it harder for the terrorists to beat those interrogation
techniques? But this administration does not seem to be on the same
page.
As I am sure you can imagine, those who wish to do us harm can simply
train to the methods that are publicized in this public document. By
limiting our intelligence community to only those techniques in the
Army Field Manual, we have removed one important tool the intelligence
community has to use against al-Qaida; that is, fear of the unknown.
Terrorists now know exactly what our interrogation methods and
limitations are, and based on that knowledge they can train and prepare
themselves to successfully resist our interrogation efforts.
I am also concerned that the administration may begin to bargain or
propose a plea deal to this terrorist, Abdulmutallab, in order to
obtain additional information. I believe this would set a very
dangerous precedent for would-be terrorists in order to potentially
have their jail time reduced. It is my understanding the policy of the
United States is not to negotiate with terrorists.
We should comprehensively and effectively interrogate terrorists to
gain the information we need, not to negotiate with them for it. The
only true way to gather this information is through an extensive
interrogation of the terrorist by highly trained intelligence
personnel. The definition of an ``extensive and comprehensive
interrogation'' is not a 50-minute questioning while the terrorist is
being prepped for surgery, as was the case with Abdulmutallab.
Extensive interrogations are conducted over a sustained amount of
time, with members of various government agencies included. They
incorporate individuals from defense intelligence and have elements of
uncertainty and surprise. This means those conducting the
interrogations are not limited to a set of interrogations which the
terrorist has trained against. In short, a proper and extensive
interrogation should not solely consist of the interrogation methods
listed in the Army Field Manual.
We have in our custody an individual who has been trained by al-
Qaida. He has met with some of its most senior leaders and has not been
properly and comprehensively interrogated. How is this possible? He
could give us information on the al-Qaida command-and-control
structure. It is possible he could give us information on funding
mechanisms, ongoing operations, safe houses, personnel and leadership
profiles, al-Qaida's governmental connections in Yemen and maybe other
Middle East nations, and what the enemy views as weaknesses in our
airport security.
What happens if, say, new information comes to light; say, Osama bin
Laden releases a new tape like he just did, or if we intercept some
communication coming out of Yemen? As it stands now, we have lost the
ability to interrogate Abdulmutallab on those issues.
Over the weekend, we heard a preposterous statement from the
President's spokesman when he said the FBI got all the information they
could get out of him. That is a preposterous statement. I do not
believe that to be the case, and I do not believe most Nevadans or
other Americans believe it either.
It is for these reasons we must transfer Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to
the

[[Page S232]]

military and remove the Executive order restrictions that requires our
intelligence community to follow only the Army Field Manual when
interrogating a terrorist. It is in the best interests of the security
of the United States to do so.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.

Amendment No. 3303

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to an
amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. Once again, we find
ourselves debating an amendment that at first blush sounds like a good
thing. But when Members take the time to actually read the amendment
and understand the programs it impacts, they will discover this
amendment causes harm to our national and international security and to
our economy.
Let me begin by discussing the last section of the amendment, section
16. Section 16 of the Coburn amendment is based on assumptions that
reflect a lack of understanding about both what constitutes
discretionary unobligated balances as well as about Federal funding and
oversight for certain critical procurement programs.
The Senator from Oklahoma claims that $100 billion would be rescinded
from an estimated $657 billion in unobligated balances. First, this
amendment assumes a rescission amount based on erroneous assumptions.
Specifically, the majority of the $657 billion in unobligated balances
would not be eligible for rescission under criteria outlined in the
amendment because they are either mandatory funds or they are not older
than 2 years.
Second, because of the small amount of unobligated funding eligible
for rescission, this amendment indiscriminately rescinds prior year
unobligated funding from certain critical programs, jeopardizing our
national defense, our homeland security, our economy, and the well-
being of our citizens.
For example, we require the Department of Defense to budget up front
for all the costs required to procure military equipment, such as ships
or aircraft. But I think all of us are aware it takes several years to
complete construction.
For shipbuilding specifically, funds provided to the Department of
Defense are available for obligation for 5 years. Rescinding
unobligated funds would now require the Navy to cancel contracts for
ships under construction and lay off thousands of workers across the
Nation's shipyards.
In terms of our veterans who have returned from war or have fought
bravely in past wars, section 16 also severely impacts the construction
of new hospitals by the Veterans' Administration.
Like for defense procurement, the VA requests full funding for the
construction project in the first year. As a result, the Veterans'
Administration has 43 active major construction projects at various
stages of completion, totaling over $1.6 billion in unobligated
balances. Over 49,000 construction jobs would be terminated with the
loss of this funding, further delaying critical services to our brave
men and women who have served us.
Rescinding unobligated balances in the Department of Homeland
Security would stop the construction of the Coast Guard National
Security Cutter and would rescind funding for the purchase of explosive
detection systems.
Rescinding unobligated balances in NOAA would create a minimum 6-
month gap in coverage for the geostationary weather satellite system,
which focuses directly over the United States, and constantly and
accurately monitors storm conditions. Over 200 employees would lose
their jobs.
The reasoning for the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is a
catch-22 for those of us on the Appropriations Committee with
responsibility for overseeing our taxpayers' dollars. We are criticized
for having funding that is unobligated for more than 1 year. Well, a
ship is not built in a year, a hospital is not built and equipped in a
year, and the next generation satellite is not built in 1 year.
The Coburn amendment proposes to rescind an additional $20 billion
from programs he perceives to be redundant. We can go around and around
about what is redundant and what is not because one's perception of
what is or is not a duplicative program is based on subjectivity. It is
that simple, and this amendment reflects what the Senator from Oklahoma
alone believes is redundant. But what is clear is that this amendment
proposes to cut $20 billion in funding that the Congress voted on and
agreed to provide just months ago.
The impact of these cuts has significant consequences for many
critical services. For example, the Senator's amendment proposes that
the intent is to consolidate duplicative programs serving the homeless.
However, in reality, this language simply calls on the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to implement a 5-percent reduction across
the Department's programs. The bulk of the funding increase recently
provided by Congress to HUD covers the increasing cost of providing
affordable housing to our Nation's low-income citizens. According to
HUD's Annual Homeless Assessment Report, on any given night there are
over 650,000 people who are homeless. However, HUD's resources fund
183,000 beds. During this difficult economic time, it is not the time
to cut housing for the Nation's poorest individuals.
This amendment also takes aim at nursing education programs, claiming
they are duplicative, when in fact they are not. While there are
several programs that promote nursing education, each of these programs
addresses different needs in our Nation's effort to address a profound
nursing shortage. We have a loan repayment program to get nurses to
rural areas, a program to incentivize nurses to teach, and a program to
expand nurse training in geriatric care.
The amendment instructs the Secretary of the Interior to consolidate
programs for dealing with the impacts of climate change. The truth is,
each of the three agencies named by the Senator deal with a different
aspect of climate change, and each brings a special expertise to the
problem. They are not duplicative; they are complementary based on
specific expertise.
For the Department of Energy, the Building Technologies Program is
not a grant program to weatherize existing residential and commercial
buildings in the same fashion as the weatherization program does for
residential homes. There is a difference between a residence and a
building. It is a research and development program aimed at new
technologies. There is simply not overlap or duplication in these
programs.
The amendment proposes to rescind funding for the 2010 census. Any
reduction in funding for the constitutionally mandated 2010 census at
this critical time would jeopardize the completion of a timely and
accurate count, which is necessary, sir.
The amendment proposes to cut $2.2 billion from critical Department
of Homeland Security programs.
The attempted destruction last month of Northwest flight 253 near
Detroit is our most recent reminder that terrorists continue to
threaten our homeland and the security of all Americans. This amendment
would reduce funding for the purchase of explosive detection equipment
at the very time the Department of Homeland Security Secretary has
asked us to address the need for further increases in airport security.
In closing, the author of this amendment arbitrarily rescinds funding
with no true justification. The rescission of $100 billion from the
$657 billion in unobligated balances, as we know, would wreak havoc on
ongoing procurement. The rescission of $20 billion is based on the
claim of redundancy in programs where no redundancy exists.
This is a bad amendment with bad consequences. It is time for Members
to act responsibly. We have a well-established process for funding the
Federal Government. It involves a Budget Committee that sets our
allocations and involves the consideration and approval by the Senate
of every appropriations bill. It is not passed in the dark of night.
I can assure my colleagues in this Chamber that the Appropriations
Committee takes its responsibilities seriously, and every agency budget
is reviewed and oversight is provided throughout the year. Each year,
the Appropriations Committee recommends rescissions of funds that are
not needed. But those rescissions are based on detailed oversight and
understanding of the programs, not indiscriminate action.
This amendment is not based on careful review and would harm many

[[Page S233]]

worthwhile programs, and it fails to meet the test of proper oversight.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Amendment No. 3308

I will also speak on another amendment. I will speak in opposition to
the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions.
We are all concerned with the growth of the deficit and the need to
control the debt of the United States. I support that goal, as I
imagine all of us in this Chamber support the goal. None of us disputes
the ultimate threat to the standard of living of our citizens posed by
long-term deficit spending.
However, the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama is not the
appropriate way to attack the issue, for several reasons. As I
understand the amendment, it would have the effect of freezing any
increases in nondefense discretionary spending for the next 5 years.
In addition, the amendment would impose caps on emergency spending
that could potentially cripple our ability to respond to emergencies,
such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks.
The amendment also contains unrealistic spending caps that would
restrict funding needed to support our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let's start with the facts. For fiscal year 2010, the government
spent $2.9 trillion, of which about $1.2 trillion was discretionary.
The remaining $1.7 trillion we declare as being mandatory. Of the $1.2
trillion that was discretionary, approximately $526 billion, or less
than half, was for nondefense purposes. Therefore, this amendment
attempts to reduce the deficit of the United States by constraining 18
percent of total government spending. If the goal is to reduce
government spending, I am unclear on how constraining growth on just 18
percent of that spending will be at all effective.
In addition, if we examine the actual numbers involved here, it
becomes even clearer that this amendment will simply not achieve its
stated goal. From fiscal years 2006 to 2009, the Federal debt was
increased by approximately $4.4 trillion. During that time, the total
increase in nondefense discretionary spending was approximately $93
billion, as compared to $4.4 trillion.
Doing the math, for the past 4 years, the increase in nondefense
discretionary spending has accounted for 2 percent of the increase in
the national debt--just 2 percent.
What do we get for this 2-percent savings? Aside from the obvious
challenge of funding vital government programs without even an
adjustment for inflation, we also put our country and our citizens at
risk.
Arbitrary spending caps would impede the delivery of resources needed
to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks and violent crime. Such
subjective across-the-board restrictions would hinder our ability to
protect our homeland and secure our borders. As more and more of our
service men and women are returning from the battlefield, this measure
would restrict our ability to provide our military personnel and
veterans with the medical care and support they need.
These are only a few examples of the damage that would be done to
vital programs, all for a projected savings of 2 percent.
Even more troubling, this amendment would impose a roughly $10
billion annual cap on emergency spending. Emergency spending is, by its
very nature and definition, impossible to predict. To deliberately
impede the government's ability to respond to natural disaster or major
terrorist attack I say is deeply irresponsible.
Recent history clearly demonstrates the folly of attempting to affix
a set price to future emergencies. More than 4 years later, the gulf
coast is still recovering from destruction wrought by Hurricane
Katrina. Over $100 billion in Federal resources has been needed to
respond to this one disaster alone.
We have all seen the horrible suffering that has resulted from the
devastating earthquake in Haiti. What if a city in California were to
experience a similar disaster? This reckless amendment could delay or
block the timely delivery of resources needed for an appropriate
Federal response.
The recent Christmas Eve airline bombing attempt serves as a stark
reminder of the grave threats that continue to face our Nation. In the
event of a major terrorist attack on our soil, the Federal Government
must not be constrained by an emergency spending cap.
Remarkably, this amendment would also restrict funding needed to
support our men and women in uniform fighting overseas. Based on
earlier budget projections that no longer reflect fiscal reality, this
amendment provides $130 billion for the current fiscal year and $50
billion per year thereafter for ``overseas deployments and other
contingencies.'' The President's recent decision to increase troop
levels in Afghanistan will almost certainly require additional
resources from Congress.
I find it very difficult to imagine that the Senator from Alabama
genuinely believes that $50 billion would suffice to cover the cost of
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If this amendment were adopted, with defense and overseas caps, in
statute, are we expecting Congress to cut defense to pay for these
operations? That is what this amendment authorizes.
Spending restraints that would deny funding needed to support our
troops are not fiscally prudent; they are deeply irresponsible.
Finally, I remind my colleagues that we already have a 60-vote
threshold to overcome budget points of order to appropriations bills.
As we all know, 60 votes is not a minor hurdle to overcome. By
increasing that threshold to 67 votes, we turn over decisionmaking to a
small portion of the Senate. We should not let those who represent only
one third of this body exercise control over bona fide emergency
spending.
This country must face the challenge of reducing our deficit. We all
agree to that. But we must do so in a meaningful and effective way. I
do not believe this amendment does either.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the Sessions
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Uganda

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a lot of times attention is drawn to
terrible things going on around the world. We hear a lot about Sudan,
and we hear about Zimbabwe, with a president who has taken that country
from the breadbasket of the world to one of the most impoverished
nations around.
But there is one area nobody talks about. I have been trying for
quite some time to get attention drawn to this area. We have a bill
that is introduced by Senator Feingold, myself, and others, which is
called the LRA Disarmament in Northern Uganda Recovery Act. This
essentially does one thing. It directs the administration to develop a
research strategy to apprehend a guy named Joseph Kony and the top LRA
commanders throughout the country and protect the civilians.
The reason this is important--and I have been dealing with this issue
for 10 years, or perhaps more. I have had occasion to spend time with
President Museveni of Uganda, President Kagame of Rwanda, and President
Kabila of Congo, and others in that area. Twenty-five years ago, Joseph
Kony--he is kind of a spiritual leader in that eastern African area. He
is a deranged person. He decided to start a thing that some people have
heard of, called the ``child's military'' or the ``children's army,''
where he goes out and abducts little kids. For more than 20 years, he
has led this Lord's Resistance Army. He has done it primarily in the
area of northern Uganda.
I have been there several times to Gulu, which is the headquarters
area. Many of the kids who have survived him are up there now in
hospitals. His way of doing things is to go into villages and abduct
children, young children--I am talking about 11, 12, 13-year-old
children--and teach them to be soldiers, with AK-47s, the whole
thing. Then they have to go back to their villages and murder their
parents and all their siblings. If they do not do that, they cut their
ears off and cut their noses off and cut their lips off, as we can see
in this picture. Here are these young, little guys. That little boy is
about 10 years old with an AK-47.

[[Page S234]]

The tribes in that part of Africa, Hutus and Tutsis, have been
fighting forever. We are all familiar with the genocide that took place
in Rwanda and the millions of people who lost their lives and the
torturing that went on. The things that have happened are just mind-
boggling. Yet all the time that was happening, nobody realized what was
going on in that area.
Millions of people have fled their homes over time and have been in
displacement camps in the areas I just described. A vast nation in the
heart of Africa, the DRC--the Democratic Republic of Congo--has strived
to recover from lengthy civil wars. It goes back to many years ago,
back when Congo got its independence from King Leopold II. Anyone with
an interest in Africa at all should read a book. It is called ``King
Leopold's Ghost.'' When you read this book, you will find out what
really happened, what the true story is not just of the Congo but all
of Africa.
This area was in the Congo. The wars started back in 1960 and then
the most recent started in 1990. Joseph Kony would go into these areas
of displaced people and capture the young people. We made an effort, as
we tracked him from one area to another just about 6 months ago, to
Goma--that is a fairly large city in Eastern Congo. That is where he
was last seen. He left before we got there. As he went north up toward
the Sudan, he mutilated 900 people, most of them young people, on that
route.
One might ask the question, Why is it these countries are not able to
eradicate this person, to do something about him? The problem is that
we have a very fine President in Uganda, President Museveni. Museveni
used to be a warrior. I think there is a reluctance of the warriors who
become Presidents of African nations to want to say: We cannot handle
the security ourselves; we are going to have to depend on other
countries, the United States or other countries, to do it for us. He
has been somewhat resistant.
President Kagame from Rwanda is--I think everyone agrees--one of the
greatest leaders in Africa. He is the one, in the genocide of 1994 that
wiped out most of his population, who was able to go back. As you go
down from the airport to the capital area of Rwanda, you would think
you are in an American city. In fact, it is much cleaner than many
American cities. He has been able to bring it back up. He also came
from the bush as a warrior. Again, he is a great person. As I said the
same thing about President Museveni, there is a reluctance to admit
they cannot handle these problems themselves.
President Kabila is President of Congo. Congo used to be called
Zaire. It is a gigantic area. We remember the stories of explorers who
went over there and were able to get all the way across the Congo,
taking months and months to do so, many of them losing their lives.
Back when the Congo was having serious problems, President Kabila, Sr.,
was there. He was actually killed, and his son Joe Kabila took the
reins of the country. Joe Kabila also has a military background.
So we have three Presidents. They respect each other. They are not at
war with each other. They all have one thing in common; that is, they
want to eradicate this monster called Joseph Kony. They have not been
able to successfully get that done.
What we are doing with this legislation is recognizing, because we
never hear anyone talking about it, that there is this serious problem
that is taking place. We all want to do things to help people who are
downtrodden, but this is one that has been overlooked.
Finally, this bill would give everybody throughout the world an
understanding that this is now a U.S. priority and that we are going to
finally do something to get rid of this Joseph Kony.
It is easy to say that is another part of the world until you get
over there and see. These are kids from 10 to 12 years old being forced
to murder people in their own village. They brutally torture these
children and maim them for life. That is what this guy has been doing
for 25 years.
We have an opportunity to do something. We never had an opportunity
before. We tried to introduce it. This bill is one that is out of the
Foreign Relations Committee now. It is sponsored primarily by Senator
Feingold. I did not support it at first because it does require about
$30 million to $35 million. He had it offset by taking money out of the
Air Force. I did not like that. I think this President is going to go
down as the most anti-defense, anti-military President in history. We
punished the military enough, and I am not going to take any more money
out of that budget. They agreed to pull that out in committee. The
money should come from USAID, from existing State Department funds. We
do not know that yet, but we do know this is going to come to the
floor. We want it to come to the floor. There is a hold on it now. In
fact, the hold is by my junior Senator. I hope we are able to get this
bill.
When we look at how many years something like this has been going on,
this unspeakable type of behavior--we don't know of anyplace else in
the world. It is a very small price to pay, a small effort to let us
take the lead with other nations. I can assure my colleagues that other
nations will follow. I have given talks in Canada and some of the other
places about the problems we have with Joseph Kony.
People say we just need to have somebody come in and say: If you can
get together the Presidents of these countries of Rwanda, Uganda,
Congo, Sudan, and the Central African Republic, these five countries,
then we will come in if you lead the way. That is what we want to do.
There are so many things going on right now. We have people who, when
we had the PEPFAR bill--that was a bill to send money to countries,
primarily African countries. That bill was on the floor of the Senate.
It had been funded previously at $15 billion. Just 6 months ago, that
bill was down here. They raised it from $15 billion to $50 billion.
They raised it $35 billion. That is going to go to Africa with very few
controls on it. We do not know where the money is going to go. This is
less than one-thousandth of that amount to defend these kids.
There is a group I ran into up in Gulu in northern Uganda. It was
about 3 years ago. I wish I could remember their names. Young college
kids recognized this was going on. They went up there with camera crews
and took pictures. They have been here and rallied the support of
literally thousands of college kids who have become familiar with these
atrocities that are taking place. I applaud them for doing it. They
wonder why we cannot do something.
If you can increase your PEPFAR funding for Africa by $35 billion and
you don't want to spend one-thousandth of that amount, $35 million, to
save those kids--30,000 kids over the years have been mutilated like
this--then there is something wrong with this country.
We are going to make every effort--Senator Feingold is one of the
more liberal Democrats, and I am one of the most conservative
Republicans. This crosses all these concepts.
I know my time has expired, but I only want to say I want to do
everything I can to get this legislation through. I am going to ask our
conservative friends to listen and do something that is right on this
legislation. I believe, with the 51 cosponsors we have right now, we
ought to be able to get the bill passed if we can get it to the floor.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Economy

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, a little over a year ago this country
stood on the brink of economic disaster. Banks and financial
institutions wavered on the verge of collapse. The foundation of our
economy was shaken to its core. But that is when this Congress took
bold action. In the face of public discontent, many of my colleagues
summoned the courage to cast a difficult

[[Page S235]]

vote--a vote that set aside hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up
our failing financial institutions, a vote that was not popular with
the American people but that I feel history will judge as the right
thing to have done.
These are the moments that define us--as individuals, as public
servants, and as a nation. The American people called upon their
representatives to make tough choices, to exercise their best judgment,
and rise to every occasion that may impact the quality of life of the
people of this country.
I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who lived up to
these expectations and made the decision to do what was right, not what
was popular. As a result of their courage and their ability to reach
for something larger than the small politics of the moment, our
economic foundation has been stabilized. That vote brought us back from
the brink of disaster and restored confidence in the financial
institutions that threatened to undermine our entire system. It did
what was necessary to prevent a complete economic meltdown.
But make no mistake, this emergency legislation did not solve every
problem. It was not a cure-all. And as many hard-working Americans will
tell you, we are not out of the woods yet. There are still miles to go.
Our country remains on the road to recovery. If we want to continue
down this road, this Congress needs to take the next step. So at this
point, we must turn our attention to the ordinary Americans who are
still suffering. It is time to help Main Street. It is time to take
bold action to create jobs, help small businesses, and stabilize
community banks. It is time to shift our focus to the innovators,
entrepreneurs, and local institutions that drive our economy on a daily
basis. In some places, things have already started to turn around and
we need to continue that progress, but especially among poor and
minority communities, these groups are falling further and further
behind. As a former banker, I understand the vital roles these
institutions play in local communities and our economy as a whole, and
I understand the challenges they face in tough times such as these.

That is why we need to embrace a new economic program which will
encourage banks to start lending, make capital available for small
businesses, and mitigate the foreclosures. Let's stop shutting down
people's homes and putting them out in the streets. If we work together
to tackle these priorities, we can have regular Americans get back on
their feet without spending another dime on Wall Street.
Let us come together right now to send a strong message to Main
Street: Help is on the way. The cavalry is coming to help them. We can
do this right now. We can do it without passing a new round of
emergency appropriations. We can do it without increasing the deficit
or the national debt and without writing another 100-page bill.
When the original economic stimulus was passed more than a year ago,
this Chamber set aside roughly $700 billion to aid in the recovery
effort. These efforts have been effective and, as we speak, there is
still $320 billion that has not been spent. So rather than begin the
process again, as some have suggested, let us simply change the focus
of the existing program. Let us draw from the money we have already set
aside to help small businesses, local banks, and ordinary folks. At the
moment, we don't have the resources or the time to start over with a
new round of stimulus legislation, so let us seize this opportunity to
direct funds we have already designated for this purpose.
Every Member of this body has seen the devastating effects of the
economic crisis in their home States. Everyone in this Chamber knows we
need to act with urgency. We can't wait another moment. Thankfully, if
we decide to embrace these priorities, there is no reason to wait. We
can restore hope and optimism to Main Street, we can help the minority
communities, small businesses, and local banks that are still in grave
need of our assistance. We can do this, and I believe we must do it.
The resources, the funds are there, and the commitment should be there.
Let us use those resources now to put them into Main Street and help
ordinary folks. Constituents come up to me all the time wondering:
Where is my piece of the stimulus package? Well, it could be in Main
Street. It could be in our local banks. So let's do it.
I call upon my colleagues to use those dollars that are now in the
stimulus package to put them into Main Street, into the local banks,
and start helping the local communities.
Thank you. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3308

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to share some thoughts on an
amendment that Senator McCaskill and I offered earlier today. I note
that a number of people are anxious to vote and finish up. If and when
that time comes, I will be pleased to yield the floor. The amendment we
offered, which would place statutory caps on spending--and that cap
level that we picked was in our budget. It is what the Senate passed in
the budget last year. It represents an increase each year, which is 1
to 2 percent annually. This is a budget number basically passed by our
Democratic colleagues.
So what we are saying is, let's adhere to that. If we adhere to that
level of spending, then we can begin to make progress.
A similar type of statutory cap was placed in 1990, renewed in 1997,
helped lead us to the only 4 years of budget surpluses in recent
memory, from 1998 through 2001. After that, the statutory caps were
allowed to expire. We find this was something that actually worked to
help us contain excessive spending. This amendment would say that
number that is in the budget for the next 5 years would be firm. We
would put it in statutory language, but, of course, it can be exceeded
by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and the statute itself can be
reversed by 60 votes of the Senate. It is not something that
constitutionally would be firm over managing our system. It is
consistent with previous actions of the Congress. It worked, and I
believe it will work again.
It has been contended today, I understand, that these caps would
impose limits on emergency spending that could potentially cripple our
ability to respond to emergencies, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and
terrorist attacks.
Well, I just want to say that hurricanes and earthquakes and things
of that nature have had huge bipartisan votes for emergency spending.
For example, after Katrina, there were two supplemental emergency bills
passed. The first was passed by unanimous consent. Nobody objected to
it. It was unanimous. The second was passed on a rollcall vote, 97 to
0. There is no doubt in my mind that if we have a serious emergency, we
will have a lot of support for responding to that emergency.
Also, one week after September 11, the Senate unanimously passed
supplemental appropriations in response to that terrorist attack. So
the allegation that somehow this would cripple the ability of Congress
to respond to emergencies is inaccurate.
Second, it was contended earlier today that the amendment contains
unrealistic spending caps that would restrict funding needed to support
our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is not accurate. The amendment includes specific provisions that
prevent the caps from restricting funding for our troops in a time of
war. It would not block us from doing that. We are in a time of war. It
just would not apply in a time of war.
We hear it said that everybody is concerned with the growth of the
deficit and the need to control debt in the United States, but this
amendment--the McCaskill-Sessions amendment--is not the appropriate way
to attack this issue.
Let me respond to that. For fiscal year 2010, the government spent
$2.9 trillion, of which about $1.2 trillion was for discretionary
spending. The remaining $1.7 trillion was mandatory spending. That is
what we call entitlements. That is when you get 65 and you are entitled
to Medicare, and the government has to pay it whether it has any money
or not. You are entitled to Social Security payments, and the
government has to come up with the

[[Page S236]]

money. We don't vote on it again. We already voted on Social Security
to set up how much money you are entitled to get. We have to have that
money. That is why it is called an entitlement.
Now entitlements--Medicare and Social Security--exceed the
discretionary account, which includes defense. So of the $1.2 trillion
that is in the discretionary account that we actually vote on each
year, approximately $526 billion, or a little less than half, is for
nondefense purposes.
This amendment attempts to reduce the deficit by constraining just 18
percent of total government spending. It can make a much larger
difference than many people realize. Five-year discretionary spending
caps were passed--what we are proposing today--in 1990 and 1997 with
strong bipartisan support. In 1997, 44 currently serving Senators
supported the caps, and 26 of them were Democrats. It made a
difference. We balanced the budget in 1998 through 2001--4 years. The
current majority leader and chairman of the Appropriations Committee
both voted, in 1990 and in 1997, for the 5-year caps, which restricted
annual discretionary spending to approximately 1 to 2 percent
increases. That is basically what our legislation would do. It would
contain this discretionary spending to 1 to 2 percent.
We know we are out of control. We know that last year discretionary
spending increased by 10 percent, and this year it will increase by 12
percent. That is unsustainable. At 7 percent growth, your money will
double in 10 years. At 12 percent growth, the amount of money we would
be spending in our discretionary account would double in 6 years--
double. We are on an unsustainable growth here. Some say: Where do you
come up with this money, Sessions? This limit of 1 to 2 percent is too
tough.
It is not too tough. It is the budget we voted on. Actually, I didn't
vote for it, our Democratic colleagues voted for it. It was their
budget, and it passed with almost unanimous Democratic support. It
calls for a 1- to 2-percent increase in spending over the next 5 years.
That is all Senator McCaskill and I are suggesting we should do. We
would make that harder to bust, harder to break it. We put in a firmer
cap. If we stay on that level, and if we have an emergency, we will
have to meet it. But if we stay at that level, we could end up
surprising ourselves how much good we can do in the years to come.
From fiscal year 2006 to 2009, the Federal debt was increased by
approximately $4.4 trillion. That is a lot. That is almost the total
debt of America. We had about $4 trillion in debt in 2006, and we
added, in those 3 years, $4.4 trillion. During that time, the total
increase in nondefense discretionary spending was approximately $93
billion. This means the increase in nondefense discretionary spending
has accounted for 2 percent of the increase in the national debt, our
critics say. So it doesn't make much difference, they would say. They
are correct about the surging debt, but not that this would make no
difference. If it made little difference, then why are they worrying
about passing it?
Restraining discretionary spending, like we did in the nineties, is
the bear minimum Congress can do to be fiscally responsible, in my
view. For fiscal year 2010, nondefense, nonveteran discretionary
spending increased by 12 percent and in 2009 by 10 percent. Those are
huge increases, not including the stimulus package. If we included the
stimulus package, nondefense discretionary spending has increased 57
percent since 2008, in 2 years.
That is a stunning number. We actually increased discretionary
spending by 57 percent in 2 years. The Sessions-McCaskill amendment is
similar to the proposal offered by President Obama or what we are
hearing he is going to offer--to freeze nondefense discretionary
spending for 3 years. This would place a cap on excess. If we break
through the President's suggestion and don't freeze and go above that,
we hit this cap, and it would take a two-thirds vote to go above that.
Apparently, President Obama's suggestion is less spending than this
bill would cap. But that is fine, we can always do less. The danger,
from my experience, is that we get carried away and do more.
Some have said the arbitrary spending caps would impede the delivery
of resources needed to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks and
violent crime. Such subjective across-the-board restrictions would
hinder our ability to protect our homeland and secure our borders.
Well, it does allow for an increase, first and foremost. Second, our
congressional process and appropriations process and authorization
process should have helped us set priorities within that. It would be
unthinkable if this Congress were to somehow take all that money that
we need from areas to keep us safe from attack. Surely, we can make
judgment decisions about that.
Another allegation is that more and more of our service men and women
are returning from the battlefield, and this would restrict our ability
to provide them the medical care and support they need.
This measure provides all the funding in the 2010 budget resolution.
It would allow that. If additional resources are needed to care for our
returning service men and women, and that has bipartisan support, and
certainly if we need to be able to take care of injured and wounded, we
could get 67 votes. We can do like most people do when they have a
necessary expense. They trim spending somewhere else and fund the more
necessary item.
Some have said it would impose a roughly $10 billion annual cap on
emergency spending. Emergency spending is, by its very nature,
impossible to predict. The critics say, to deliberately impede the
government's ability to respond to a natural disaster or major
terrorist attack is deeply irresponsible. But that is not what we do.
In the legislation we proposed as an amendment, Senator McCaskill and I
set up a $10 billion a year emergency fund--every year. That would be
incorporated in the budget resolution, it would be contained in our
amendment, and it would be restricted only by the normal 60-vote
requirement on a budget point of order for emergency spending. That
money would not be subject to a higher point of order, and it would not
change up to the first $10 billion--which is a lot of money.
Alabama's budget, including education, is about $7 billion. So we are
setting aside $10 billion for emergency funds every year, and if we
went above that, we would have to have a supermajority for the kind of
emergency that would justify that.
I do not think that criticism is valid. Also, some have said that
recent history clearly demonstrates the folly of attempting to fix a
set price for future emergencies.
More than 4 years later, the Gulf Coast is still recovering from
Hurricane Katrina. Over $100 billion in Federal resources has been
needed to respond to this disaster alone.
Our amendment would have no effect on Hurricane Katrina. The fact is,
as I have said before, we have had virtually unanimous votes supporting
funding for Katrina. I do not think that is a valid criticism. If we
have an emergency, I am confident this Congress will meet it.
The recent Christmas Day airline bombing--I see my friend, Senator
Leahy. Is he seeking the floor to speak? If so, I will try to wrap up.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to speak for just 3 or 4
minutes, but I do not want to interrupt my friend from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will wrap up. I do not want to delay the vote. It
will be perfectly appropriate for him to make his remarks at this time.
But first, I will point out this chart. Why do we need to contain the
reckless growth in spending? This chart shows how much interest we pay
on the debt. When we passed a stimulus package of almost $800 billion,
we did not have that money. Where did we get it? We borrowed it, and we
have to pay interest on it.
When we have an emergency, such as Hurricane Katrina--by definition,
an emergency is an expenditure for which we do not have the money and
it is above our budget. Our budget puts us in deficit. Emergency
spending is always deficit funded, funded with borrowed money.
In 2009, the interest we paid on our debt was $200 billion. That is
the public debt. We have more debt than that. We have internal debt.
Under the 10-year proposal President Obama gave us early last year, the
Congressional

[[Page S237]]

Budget Office concludes that our deficits will surge and that in 10
years, the interest for 1 year would be $799 billion. That is why
everybody says we are on an unsustainable path. How do we get off it?
Basically, we have to contain our spending. We cannot have $800 billion
stimulus packages every year or two. We cannot have spending increases
of 10 percent and 12 percent in basic discretionary accounts.
If we start taking firm action now, this will not happen. The debt
tends to compound. Our deficits tend to compound. They go into the
baseline, and then we have an increase over that the next year and the
next year, and it compounds a lot more than some of our Members
realize. That is why we are getting into the area that threatens the
very financial viability of this Nation, as Mr. Greenspan said in
December with a statement so strong about the danger we face that it
would curl your hair.
That is why Senator McCaskill and I think we need to take some
action. This is a proven way to do so with statutory caps. I encourage
my colleagues to see it for what it is: a bipartisan attempt to be sure
we do not rise above the budgetary caps that are in our budget. This
amendment would make it hard to go above those levels in our spending.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend from Alabama for
yielding time.

Amendment No. 3303

Among the $120 billion in funding cuts that would be required by the
Coburn amendment is a $1.3 billion rescission from the State
Department. Section 13 of the amendment specifically directs the
Secretary of State to eliminate two programs--the East-West Center and
the Asia Foundation--saying this would produce savings.
Even if it made sense to eliminate these programs which have a long
history of achievement for our Nation and strong bipartisan, bicameral
support, to do so would produce savings of only $42 million--a long way
from the $120 billion about which he spoke. The Senator's amendment
does not say where the balance of the $1.3 billion cut would come from.
The Senator's Web site mentions two other small programs within the
State and Foreign Operations budget that he believes should be cut
which total $25 million, and $20 million of that, incidentally, is for
the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, something that gets us praise
around the world and actually protects the well-being of everybody in
this country. It has long been supported by the senior Republican on
the Foreign Relations Committee.
The explanation of the Senator from Oklahoma for eliminating these
funds is that other nations should be responsible for the conservation
of their own tropical forests. Would that it were so. But when they get
cut down, they affect those of us in Vermont, Colorado, Oklahoma, or
anywhere else. In fact, it is like saying to other nations, no matter
how impoverished--for example, Haiti--that they should take care of
their own health needs. That ignores the fact that deadly viruses, such
as HIV and TB, are as oblivious to national boundaries as are carbon
emissions from the destruction of tropical forests. It is a
shortsighted and unworkable approach to global problems that affect the
American people directly.
In defense of his proposal to rescind $1.3 billion from the State
Department, Senator Coburn cites more than $13 billion in funding for
Iraq reconstruction that has been wasted, stolen, or lost. I see my
good friend from Oklahoma on the floor. I say in that regard, there is
no doubt there was deplorable waste, fraud, and abuse of U.S. taxpayer
funds by contractors, such as Halliburton, that received no-bid,
sweetheart contracts under the last Republican administration. It was
probably the most poorly implemented nation-building program in
history. At that time, the Republican Congress rubber-stamped those
funds that were wasted--probably not wasted if you were a shareholder
of Halliburton; you thought it was a good idea because they walked off
with so much of it. The White House even opposed efforts by some of us,
including Republicans, to create the Office of the Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction that discovered the misuse of funds.
I also remind everybody that it was the Republican Congress, with a
Republican President, that inherited the largest surplus in America's
history, created by a Democratic administration, that of President
Clinton's, that left a surplus that was paying down the national debt,
left a huge surplus to the incoming Republican President. The
Republican Congress not only voted to use that surplus to pay for an
unnecessary war in Iraq but even cut taxes when we were fighting what
ended up being two wars. It is the only time in our Nation's history we
have done that--spend the surplus, cut taxes, and somehow these wars
that have been going on now for 8 years would pay for themselves.
I think to use the last Republican administration's waste of taxpayer
dollars in Iraq as a rationale to rescind funds today that have
bipartisan support for the security of our embassies and our diplomats
overseas and for programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, the Middle
East, Indonesia, Mexico, Central Asia, Israel, and Egypt, where the
threats to U.S. national security interests are beyond dispute, would
be foolhardy.
Every one of us should agree that not every Federal program deserves
to be funded and certainly not because it was funded in the past. I
have voted to cut programs in the Appropriations Committee and on this
floor because they have gone beyond their useful life span or were
ineffective. Some programs are effective. Those that are not should be
eliminated.

But the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations,
with leadership between myself and the senior Senator from New
Hampshire, Mr. Gregg--we spent the better part of last year making
difficult choices of what to fund and what to cut. The Appropriations
Committee approved those choices, Republicans and Democrats, all 29
members, with one dissenting vote, and that was on another issue
involving abortion. This amendment would cut funding to combat HIV, TB.
Countries receive help from us, from Colombia, to Israel, to Egypt, to
Mexico. The Senator from Oklahoma, with one strike of the pen, would
arbitrarily slash 5 percent of that funding. Should we look for places
where we can save money, where programs are not meeting their goals? Of
course. But to do it this way, willy-nilly, picking a percentage out of
the air with no concern for the consequences, does not protect the
security of the American people.
There is another section of the amendment about which I would like to
speak. Section 5 of the amendment directs the Secretary of Education to
work with the Secretaries of other relevant agencies to consolidate and
reduce the cost of administering the student foreign exchange and
international education programs. These exchanges are some of the most
strongly supported programs by both Democrats and Republicans in the
foreign aid budget.
This amendment takes aim at the Benjamin Gilman International
Scholarship Program, as well as several Department of Education
international education and research programs, some of which are
administered by the State Department, and a National Science Foundation
program.
The Benjamin Gilman Program, created by Congress, provides
scholarships to American undergraduates to study abroad, including
students in nontraditional destinations, or to study critical
languages, such as Arabic, Persian, and Chinese. Our military, and our
intelligence agencies, say there is an unmet need for Americans who can
speak these languages. Senator Coburn would cut funding for it.
The Department of Education's Foreign Language and Area Studies
Fellowship Program provides funding for foreign language study at U.S.
universities, and several of these programs focus on strengthening
study in international business and education, at a time when we are
becoming more and more aware we cannot compete just within our borders.
Our businesses have to be able to compete with other countries around
the world or we lose jobs in America. We should be strengthening our
study of international business and education, not cutting these
programs.

[[Page S238]]

The amendment would cut other successful exchanges, such as the
Fulbright-Hayes programs for teachers, high school students, graduate
students, and business professionals. These exchanges bring foreigners
with a range of economic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to the
United States and they send Americans overseas. At a time when America
should be reaching out around the world for our security, for our
businesses, we should not be cutting these programs which have been
woefully underfunded as both Republicans and Democrats have pointed
out.
The Institute for International Education is one example of an
organization that effectively administers these programs. It provides
citizens of other countries with a chance to learn firsthand about
American culture, our values, our government, and our way of life.
These are among the most effective ways of countering the
misrepresentation and false stereotypes about the United States that we
see perpetrated by extremists. Some of these programs and their
predecessors I saw during the Cold War period. I remember one of the
early meetings I had, along with several others, with President Ronald
Reagan. He had spoken about the evil empire, and he said: What would
you suggest we do? Of the suggestions that several of us made, I said
this: Why don't you visit the Soviet Union and invite their leader to
come to the United States next year and visit here?

He said: Why?
I said: Because you really don't know much about them. I pressed him
a little on that, but he heard me out, and I said: But they do not know
much about you either, and it would force them to learn about you and
your staff, and it would force us to learn about them and their staff.
Later, in his second term, President Reagan told me that was some of
the best advice he ever got. We know how triumphant his visit was to
the Soviet Union and how triumphant it was when Mr. Gorbachev came
here, and the two of them learned about each other and worked together
to lower the threat of nuclear war.
That is just one example.
Mr. COBURN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LEAHY. Without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. COBURN. No problem there.
Is the Senator aware that the foreign ops appropriation increased by
11 percent in 2009 and 33 percent last year? Yet the Senator is saying
we can't trim 5 percent from that budget? Am I hearing the Senator
correctly? We increased it 46 percent in 2 years, and we can't cut 5
percent?
Mr. LEAHY. I would tell the Senator from Oklahoma that if you look
over the last 10 years, there have been significant shortfalls in many
of these programs, and in personnel. The increases began first at the
request of former President George W. Bush, and then followed by
President Obama because they realized the need for us to have these
programs for our own security.
My response would be: Where do we make cuts? Your amendment does not
say. Do we start with individual countries--Israel, Egypt, and so on?
Do we start with programs to combat HIV, or malaria, or programs to
eliminate childhood diseases in Africa? These exchanges enable
Americans and foreigners to conduct scientific research to increase
understanding and cooperation.
Rather than cut funding, Senators on both sides of the aisle have
consistently urged the Appropriations Committee to increase funding to
expand our efforts to promote better understanding of the United
States. If we had funded all the requests for increases, it would be
considerably more than it was. Senator Gregg and I stayed within our
allocation. Also, I think it was the only appropriations subcommittee
that reported a bill with no earmarks.
If there are ways of consolidating to reduce some administrative
costs without harming the effectiveness or reducing opportunities to
participate in these exchange programs, I am for it. But rather than by
amendment to the debt ceiling bill, rather than giving carte blanche to
the administration--or any administration--let's consider this in the
normal appropriations process in a deliberative way.
Mr. President, we actually work hard on these bills. We make
difficult choices. Some things get funded, others do not. We vote up or
down. We have to stay within our budget, and we did, and we did it
without earmarks. So I believe the amendment should be rejected.
It sounds nice we should just eliminate $2 billion in waste. Who
would not want that? Let us be specific. Let us make the hard choices
and say where the cuts are going to come from. The Senator's amendment
does not do that. I recall a Republican President who gave great
speeches about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and
then during his administration tripled the national debt. I have heard
great speeches by people who have voted to cut taxes during two wars,
by people who instead of using the surplus left by the last Democratic
President squandered it in a year's time.
Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader on the Senate
floor, so I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the
Coburn amendment, No. 3303, to be divided into four divisions, as
follows, and modified to strike sections 17 and 18: section 1, division
I; section 2, division II; sections 3 to 5, division III; and section
16, division IV; further, that once the Republican leader or his
designee has offered his amendment, a copy of which is at the desk, no
further amendments or motions be in order; that Senator Coburn be
recognized for up to 15 minutes; that upon the use or yielding back of
that time, the Senate proceed to vote with respect to the following
amendments in the following order; and that prior to each vote, there
be 6 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual
form--that is, there be 3 minutes on each side: Coburn division I,
Coburn division II, Coburn division III, Coburn division IV; that on
Thursday, January 28, after any leader time, the Senate then resume
consideration of H.J. Res. 45; that no further debate be in order
except as provided for in this agreement; that prior to each of the
following votes with respect to H.J. Res. 45, there be 4 minutes of
debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form: Brownback
amendment regarding commissions, which is at the desk; Sessions-
McCaskill amendment No. 3308; Reid amendment No. 3305; Baucus, for
Reid, substitute amendment No. 3299; passage, H.J. Res. 45; further,
that the cloture motions filed with respect to H.J. Res. 45 be
withdrawn; with the vote threshold requirement still in effect as
provided in the order of December 22, and that the Baucus amendment No.
3306 be withdrawn; further, that upon disposition of H.J. Res. 45, the
Senate then proceed to executive session, and there be 60 minutes of
debate prior to the cloture vote on Executive Calendar No. 641, the
nomination of Ben Bernanke to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, with the time equally divided and
controlled between the leaders or their designees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to modify my consent request. I said
sections 3 to 5, but it is sections 3 to 15 be division III.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will
not object, but I want to convey my appreciation to the leader and his
staff for allowing division in the four areas on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3303), as modified, is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

TITLE __--ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE AND WASTEFUL SPENDING

SEC. 1. IDENTIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, AND ELIMINATION OF
DUPLICATIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.

The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability
Office shall conduct routine investigations to identify
programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative
goals and activities within Departments and governmentwide
and report annually to Congress on the findings, including

[[Page S239]]

the cost of such duplication and with recommendations for
consolidation and elimination to reduce duplication
identifying specific rescissions.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCREASE OF THE OFFICE BUDGETS OF MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-68 for the
legislative branch, $245,000,000 in unobligated balances are
permanently rescinded: Provided, That none of the funding
available for the Legislative Branch be available for any
pilot program for mailings of postal patron postcards by
Senators for the purpose of providing notice of a town
meeting by a Senator in a county (or equivalent unit of local
government) at which the Senator will personally attend.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL
SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE
PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-80 for the
Department of Agriculture, $1,342,800,000 in unobligated
balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, That as
proposed by the President's FY 2010 budget, no funding may be
available for the Economic Action Program, which is
duplicative of USDA's Urban and Community Forestry program,
has been poorly managed, and has funded questionable
initiatives such as music festivals:  Provided further, That
no funding may be available for the High Energy Cost grant
program, which is duplicative of the $6,000,000,000 in low
interest loan programs offered by the UDSA's Rural Utilities
Service: Provided further, That as included in the
Congressional Budget Office's August 2009 Budget Options
document, which states that the program ``merely replaces
private spending with public spending'', no funding may be
available for the Foreign Market Development Program, which
also duplicates the Foreign Agricultures Service's Market
Access Program: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the numerous
programs administered by the Department relating to
encouraging conservation, including the Conservation
Stewardship Program, which the Government Accountability
Office revealed in 2006 is duplicative of other USDA
conservations efforts, including the Conservation Reserve
Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farmland
Protection Program, the Wildlife Habitat Program, and the
Grassland Reserve Program: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall work with the Secretary of Energy to
consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the numerous
programs administered by both Departments relating to
bioenergy promotion, including the Department of Energy's
Biomass Program, the Department of Agriculture's Biomass Crop
Assistance Program, the Biorefinery Program for Advanced
Fuels Program, and the Biobased Products and Bioenergy
Program, the Biorefinery Repowering Assistance Program, the
New Era Rural Technology Competitive Grants Program, and the
Feedstock Flexibility Program: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall work with the Secretary of Energy to
consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the numerous
programs administered by both Departments relating to
alternative energy, including the Department of Energy's
Geothermal Technology Program, Wind Energy Program, and the
Solar Energy Technologies Program, and the Department of
Agriculture's Rural Energy for America Program: the Secretary
shall consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the
numerous programs administered by the Department that provide
food assistance to foreign countries, including the USAD
Foreign Agricultural Service, the food for Progress Program,
the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program, the food for Peace programs, the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust, and the Local and Regional
Procurement Projects ; Provided further, That for any program
for which funding is prohibited in this section, any
activities under that program that are deemed by the
Secretary to be necessary or essential, the Secretary shall
assign to an existing program for which funding is not
prohibited in this section.

SEC. 4. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL
SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE
PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for
the Department of Commerce, $697,850,000 in unobligated
balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the
Secretary shall work with the Secretary of Agriculture to
consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the programs
administered by both Departments that provide rural public
telecom grants, including eliminating USDA's grants to rural
public broadcasting stations, as proposed by the President's
FY 2010 budget, which duplicates the Department of Commerce's
Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, and the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which also receives
Federal funding: Provided further, That no funding may be
made available for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program, which duplicates the Small Business
Administration's Small Business Development Centers and which
has been found by the Office of Management and Budget to
``only serve a small percentage of small manufactures each
year'': Provided further, That the Secretary shall work with
the Secretaries of Housing and Rural Development and
Agriculture to consolidate and reduce the cost of
administering the programs administered by these Departments
relating to Economic Development, including the following
programs, the Economic Development Administration, the
Community Development Block Grants, Rural Development
Administration grants, the National Community Development
Initiative, the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative,
the Rural Housing and Economic Development grants, the
Community Service Block Grants, the Delta Regional Authority,
the Community Economic Development grants, and the
Historically Underutilized Business Zone program: Provided
further, That for any program for which funding is prohibited
in this section, any activities under that program that are
deemed by the Secretary to be necessary or essential, the
Secretary shall assign to an existing program for which
funding is not prohibited in this section.

SEC. 5. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL
SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE
PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for
the Department of Education, $3,213,800,000 in unobligated
balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the
Secretary shall work with Secretaries from other Federal
Departments to consolidate and reduce the cost of
administering the at least 30 Federal programs that provide
financial assistance to students to support postsecondary
education in the forms of grants, scholarships, fellowships,
and other types of stipends, including the 15 such programs
at the Department of Education, such as the Academic
Competitiveness Grants, the TEACH grants, the Federal
Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, the Leveraging
Educational Assistance Program, the Javits Fellowships
Program, Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need
program, as well as the three similar programs administered
by the National Science Foundation, such as the Robert Noyce
Teacher Scholarship program, as well as a program at the
Department of Justice and one at the Health Resources
Administration: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
work with Secretaries from other Federal Departments to
consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the at least
69 Federal programs dedicated in full or in part to
supporting early childhood education and child care, as
outlined by the Government Accountability Office, which found
that these 69 education programs are spread across 10
different agencies: Provided further, That the Secretary
shall work with Secretaries from other Federal Departments to
consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the at least
105 Federal science, technology, math, and engineering
education programs, as outlined by the Academic
Competitiveness Council, which found that these 105 education
programs are spread across numerous Federal agencies:
Provided further, That the Secretary shall work with
Secretaries from other Federal Departments to consolidate and
reduce the cost of administering the numerous student foreign
exchange and international education programs, including the
at least 14 programs at the Department, including the
American Overseas Research Centers, Business and
International Education, Centers for International Business
Education, the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships,
the Institute for International Public Policy, the
International Research and Studies, the Language Resource
Centers, the National Resource Centers, the Technological
Innovation and Cooperation for Foreign Information Access,
and the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign
Language Program, the State Department's Benjamin A. Gilman
International Scholarship Program, the Boren National
Security Education Trust Fund, and exchange programs
administered by the National Science Foundation's Office of
International Science and Engineering.

SEC. 6. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL
SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE
PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-85 for the
Department of Energy, $1,321,800,000 in unobligated balances
are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the Secretary shall
work with Secretaries from other Federal Departments to
consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the various
Federal weatherization efforts, including Federal funding for
State-run weatherization projects, the Department of Energy's
Energy Conservation and Weatherization grants, as well as the
Department of Energy's building Technologies Program, the
LIHEAP weatherization efforts, the National Park Service's
Weatherization and Improving the Energy Efficiency of
Historic Buildings program, and the Department of Housing and
Urban Development's Energy Innovation Fund: Provided further,
That the Secretary shall consolidate and reduce the cost of
administering the various energy grant programs, including
the Tribal Energy grant program, which overlaps with the
Department's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants,
and the Energy Start Energy Efficient appliance Rebate
Program: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the various
vehicle technology programs at the Department, including the
Vehicle Technologies program, the Advanced Battery

[[Page S240]]

Manufacturing grants, the Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing Loans Program, and the Innovative Technology
Loan Guarantee Program.

SEC. 7. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL
SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE
PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for
the Department of Health and Human Services, $4,116,950,000
in unobligated balances are permanently rescinded: Provided,
That the Secretary, in coordination with the heads of other
Departments and agencies, shall consolidate the programs that
support nonresidential buildings and facilities construction,
including the 29 programs across 8 Federal agencies
identified by the Government Accountability Office. The
Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of HUD and USDA
and other appropriate departments and agencies, shall
consolidate duplicative programs intended to reduce poverty
and revitalize low-income communities, including the HHS
Community Services Block Grant, the HUD Community Development
Block Grant, and USDA Rural Development program: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall work with Secretaries from
other Federal Departments to consolidate and reduce the cost
of administering the dozens of Federal programs, across
multiple agencies, that funded childhood obesity programs,
either as the main focus or as one component of the Federal
program.

SEC. 8. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL
SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE
PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-83 for the
Department of Homeland Security, $2,205,000,000 in
unobligated balances are permanently rescinded: Provided,
That the Secretary shall work with Secretaries from other
Federal Departments to consolidate and reduce the cost of
administering the dozens of Federal homeland security
programs, as identified by the Office of Management and
Budget, which states that ``a total of 31 agency budgets
include Federal homeland security funding in 2010''.

SEC. 9. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL
SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE
PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for
the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
$2,302,450,000 in unobligated balances are permanently
rescinded: Provided, That the Secretary shall work with
Secretaries from other Federal Departments to consolidate and
reduce the cost of administering the various Federal programs
aimed at addressing homelessness, including the Supportive
Housing Program, the Shelter Plus Care Program, the Single
Room Occupancy Program, the Emergency Shelter Grant Program,
programs at Health and Human Services such as the Basic
Center Program, Projects for Assistance in Transition from
Homelessness, and the Street Outreach Program, and also
including the more than 23 housing programs identified by the
Government Accounting Office that target or have special
features for the elderly.

SEC. 10. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF
WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF
DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
INTERIOR.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-88 for the
Department of Interior, $606,200,000 in unobligated balances
are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the Secretary shall
consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the at least
11 historic preservation programs at the Department,
including the 9 preservation programs at the Heritage
Preservation Services, such as the Federal Agency
Preservation Assistance Program, the Historic Preservation
Planning Program, the Technical Preservation Services for
Historic Buildings, as well as the Save America's Treasures
Grant Program, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
and the Preserve America program: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall consolidate and reduce the cost of
administering the various climate change impact programs at
the Department, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs office
Tackling Climate Impacts Initiative, the U.S. Geological
Survey's National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center,
the US Fish and Wildlife Service climate change initiatives,
and the state and tribal wildlife conservation grants which
are being provided to entities to adapt and mitigate the
impacts of climate change on wildlife: Provided further, That
the Secretary shall consolidate and reduce the cost of
administering the dozens of invasive species research,
monitoring, and eradication programs at the Department,
including the eight programs administered by the US Fish and
Wildlife Services, the similar programs administered by the
Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the
4 Federal councils created to coordinate Federal invasive
species efforts, the National Invasive Species Council, the
National Invasive Species Information Center, the Federal
Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and
Exotic Weeds, and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.

SEC. 11. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF
WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF
DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for
the Department of Justice, $1,385,100,000 in unobligated
balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the
Attorney General in coordination with the heads of other
Departments and agencies, shall consolidate Federal offender
reentry programs, including those authorized by the Second
Chance Act, the DOJ Office of Justice Programs Bureau of
Justice Assistance Prisoner Reentry Initiative, the
Department of Labor Reintegration of Ex-Offenders program,
the Department of Education Lifeskills for State and Local
Inmates Programs, and the HHS Young Offender Reentry Program:
Provided further, That the Attorney General shall consolidate
the four duplicative grant programs, including the State
Formula Grant program, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention
Block Grant program, the Challenge/Demonstration Grant
program, and the Title V grant program, administered under
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and
reduce the cost of administering such programs: Provided
further, That the Attorney General, in coordination with the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office
of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), shall consolidate
Federal programs that assist state drug courts, including
substance abuse treatment services for offenders, such as the
HHS Adult, Juvenile, and Family Drug Court program, the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Drug Court Treatment Program, the DOJ Drug Court Program, the
ONDCP National Drug Court Institute: Provided further,That
the Attorney General shall eliminate the National Drug
Intelligence Center (NDIC) which duplicates the activities of
19 other drug intelligence centers and reassign any essential
duties performed by NDIC.

SEC. 12. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF
WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF
DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for
the Department of Labor, $679,100,000 in unobligated balances
are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the Secretary, in
coordination with the heads of other Departments and
agencies, shall consolidate the 18 programs administered by
the Department and ten programs administered by other
agencies that support job training and employment, such as
the Adult Employment and Training Activities program,
Dislocated Worked Employment and Training Activities, Youth
Activities, YouthBuild, and the Migrant and Seasonal Farmers
program and reduce the cost of administering such programs.

SEC. 13. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF
WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF
DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
STATE.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for
the Department of State, $1,318,550,000 in unobligated
balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, That in
accordance with the President's FY 2010 budget, no funding
may be made available for the Center for Cultural and
Technical Interchange Between East and West, which duplicates
the State Departments cultural exchanges: Provided further,
That no funding may be made available for the Asia
Foundation, which duplicates efforts at USAID and the
National Endowment for Democracy: Provided further, That for
any program for which funding is prohibited in this section,
any activities under that program that are deemed by the
Secretary to be necessary or essential, the Secretary shall
assign to an existing program for which funding is not
prohibited in this section.

SEC. 14. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF
WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF
DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for
the Department of Transportation, $1,090,500,000 in
unobligated balances are permanently rescinded: Provided,
That the Secretary shall consolidate and reduce the costs of
various duplicative highway programs, including the
regionally specific development programs, the Federal-Aid
Highway Programs under chapter I of title 23, United States
Code, the Research programs authorized under title V of
Public Law 109-59: Provided further, That the Secretary shall
consolidate and reduce the costs of various rail-line
relocation grant programs, including the Rail-Line Relocation
and Improvement Capital Program, and the Highway-Rail
Crossings Program, the Railroad Rehabilitation and
Improvement Financing program.

SEC. 15. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF
WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF
DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
TREASURY.

Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for
the Department of Treasury, $677,650,000 in unobligated
balances are permanently rescinded.

SEC. 16. RESCISSION OF UNSPENT AND UNCOMMITTED FUNDS FEDERAL
FUNDS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the
$657,000,000,000 in Federal funds unobligated at the end of
fiscal year 2009, the discretionary, unexpired funds
available for more than 2 consecutive fiscal years, as of the
date of enactment of this Act, are permanently rescinded.

[[Page S241]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we just heard the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, who is also chairman of the appropriations
subcommittee, give the typical Washington talk on why we can't cut
spending. In light of the fact there has been a 45-percent increase in
his area of appropriations, we now can't come back and give 5 percent
of that back to the American people.
Forty-five percent growth in 2 years, and we are picking winners and
losers? We are not picking winners. The only winners we are picking are
the American people.
The fact is, there hasn't been a major program eliminated by the
appropriations subcommittee in 5 years. What they do is, once they are
there, they are there forever, and nobody is willing to make the hard
choices. That is typical of all the talk we will hear about why we
can't cut $120 billion from the expenditures for this year--$120
billion out of $3.4 trillion, and we can't come up with 5 percent. We
can't find it.
We are giving you a way to do that. Everybody is going to get to
vote, and we are going to send a message to the American people. At the
rate we are growing the government, it will double in the next 5 years,
and we can't find 5 percent, when they are having to make 10, 15, 20,
and 25 percent cuts in their own budgets.
What we heard was the typical appropriations response: We work hard,
let's save this for appropriations. The problem is it never happens
because every bill, somewhere, has a small constituency--every program.
We listed 640 programs that have duplication, redundancy, and
inefficiency. Yet we hear an appropriations subcommittee chairman say:
Oh, no, we can't.
Well, the American people don't get that. We ought to be about
trimming the waste out of this government, and at a conservative
estimate there is at least $387 billion in waste, fraud, or duplication
this year.
So we have the tremendous opportunity to come down here and deny the
truth the American people know: This government is wasteful, it is not
efficient, and most of the time it is not effective. When we try to
make a commonsense, small cut after a tremendous growth over the last 2
years, we hear: No, we can't. No, we can't. We hear a sob story. We
can't do it.
The fact is, we don't have a future unless we start cutting spending.
The President even asked his staff to give him an option on the budget
of a 5-percent across-the-board cut. We will hear tomorrow night about
freezing discretionary spending. It is easy to freeze discretionary
spending. We have just jumped it 27 percent across the board. But the
freezing doesn't start until 2011. We are not going to freeze it until
2011. Our problem is today. The problem that our children are going to
face is being manifested and made significantly harder because we are
fearful to make commonsense cuts.
Mr. President, $100 billion out of this $120 billion comes from $660
billion that is sitting in agencies that haven't expended it over the
last 2 years--the $660-some billion. We are saying, of those that
haven't been spent, that hasn't been rolled out over the last 2 years,
send $100 billion back. It is easy. We are spending money so fast that
the agencies can't even get it out the door. When they do get it out
the door, it is ineffective and highly inefficient and loaded with
fraud.
Why in the world would we reject making commonsense efforts just like
everybody else in this country is having to make today? Why would we
put in the perspective: Oh, we can't do these little things, from the
Foreign Operations Subcommittee, when in fact our country is drowning
in debt and the future for our children is in doubt? We cry crocodile
tears over some little program somewhere that in the whole realm of
things is either duplicated or highly ineffective. We want to keep
every last one of them.
We just heard the chairman of the foreign ops subcommittee say we
can't do any of this. They are way too valuable; we can't do it.
Well, what is more valuable, taking care of the next generation,
embracing our heritage of sacrifice to create opportunity or satisfying
a small interest group that is dependent on a government program that
is both ineffective and inefficient and also has three or four other
programs that do exactly the same thing?
The first component that we are going to vote on is a mandatory
request of the GAO to tell us the duplication; tell us across agency
lines where we are failing. What do we need to know? Nobody can tell us
that today. When we asked the GAO--personally asked the GAO--they said
the task is too big. Well, that ought to be our first signal that
something is really wrong, when the Government Accounting Agency says
the government is so big and convoluted that they can't tell us where
we have duplication. They cannot give us recommendations on what to
eliminate.

That ought to be our first signal to say time out, stop, cut some
spending and let's see who squeals, and we will put back if we have
made a mistake.
The American people understand, more than we do, what is at risk in
the future. They want a secure future. They want the ability to plan
for their children and their grandchildren. They do not want a fiat
currency, which is what is coming if we do not rein in spending.
Most of my colleagues know that is the problem before us. The
question is, will we have the courage to go after it. It would be
different had we not had significant increases over the last 4 or 5
years in this country, in terms of the budget of the Federal
Government. But it has doubled. We are going to have an increase in the
debt limit for 1 year that is $200 billion more than the entire
government spent in 1999. In 10 years we are going to borrow $200
billion more than we spent--just to operate 1 year--than we spent in
the entire budget in fiscal year 1999. Of every penny we spend this
next year, 44 cents of it is going to be borrowed--$4.4 billion a day.
What this amendment says is let's not make that so. It does not have
to be so. Let's cut it to $3 billion or $3.3 billion of that. Let's
save the future for our children.
I am reminded that hard things are hard. Habits are hard to break.
The habit of Washington is to never have to make a hard choice. We
heard a stellar representation by the Senator from Vermont about why
things cannot change here--because everybody has a special little
project, they want to protect. While they are protecting their special
little project, they are forgetting about the country as a whole. That
should not be the legacy we want to embrace. The legacy we ought to
embrace is that we had the courage to make the hard, tough decisions at
a time when it was called for. Now is that time. It is not 2011, it is
not next month, it is not when the appropriations bills come, it is
now.
Just think what would happen to the dollar tomorrow if the Senate
cuts $120 billion of discretionary spending that is wasteful and
duplicated and is not going to make a difference in nary an American
life. The signal it will send to the world is we are back on track. The
value of the dollar will rise, the cost of oil will go down, the
standard of living of consumers will go up, and every family this year
will benefit to the tune of $794, if we agree to this amendment.
I think the citizens of America are worth that. I know their children
and grandchildren are worth it. The question is, will we curry up the
courage? Will we meet the challenge that faces this country or will we
continue the status quo because we have always done it this way? Doing
it this way is exactly what put us $12.4 trillion in debt; by this time
next year $14.2 trillion in debt. It is mortgaging and stealing the
future of our children.
I look forward to seeing the outcome of the votes, and I know the
American people do. This is the first time in a long time we have had a
true vote on the floor to make a difference in what is going to happen
in the finances of this country. My hope is we will not disappoint,
again, the American people.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma
that there is waste within government, that there is duplication or
overlap of programs across some government agencies, and that the
amount of spending approved for fiscal year 2010 was higher than it
should have been given our Nation's fiscal situation. That is part of
the reason why I opposed the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution.
But, I am not enamored of the approach that Senator Coburn has taken

[[Page S242]]

in this amendment. It is an abdication of our constitutional duties as
elected Members of Congress to cede such vast decisionmaking power to
the executive branch. If there is $120 billion to be cut from the
budget, we should identify those cuts and vote on them. We should not
let the President, a commission, or some other entity make those
decisions for us.
Throughout the past year the Senator from Oklahoma and other Members
offered amendments to cut spending from the budget resolution,
appropriations bills, and other measures. Some of these amendments were
adopted and some were not. I supported some of the amendments and
opposed others. In each case, however, Senators knew what they were
voting on and had some idea what the effect of the amendment would be.
With this amendment we have no idea what its effect will be. The
sponsor of the amendment says the impacts will be negligible but offers
virtually no specifics. Perhaps he is correct. It is also possible that
the President--whose priorities in many respects differ significantly
from most Senators on my side of the aisle--will take the reductions
mandated by this amendment from programs that my colleagues and I feel
to be high priorities. It is possible that the President will fail to
take the reductions from those programs we feel are most duplicative or
wasteful.
We will likely never know the answers to these questions. This
amendment will not be enacted. I agree that Federal spending must be
constrained. As we go forward, however, I hope the Senate will take a
more transparent approach to deficit reduction so that Senators,
consistent with their constitutional responsibilities, can make
informed decisions about the operations of the Federal Government.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the Coburn amendment, Division I.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 6 Leg.]

YEAS--94

Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NOT VOTING--6

Byrd
Mikulski
Roberts
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 0.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
division, the division is agreed to.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the next three votes be 10-
minute rollcalls.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3303, Division II

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 6 minutes of debate, equally
divided, on Coburn division No. II. Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this amendment rescinds our increase for
our operations. We increased our budget 5.8 percent at a time when
there was no inflation last year, zero. The year before that, we had
increased our budget in excess of 10.9 percent, which means we
effectively increased our own budgets to run our own operations 17
percent in the last 2 years, with less than 1 percent inflation over
that period. If, in fact, we can't lead by example to cut our own
budgets to help the country move out of the problem it is having, it is
probably because we are not very good managers of our own budgets,
which belies the problem we now face. I appreciate support on this
amendment. The American people would sincerely appreciate support on
this amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the amendment being offered by the Senator
from Oklahoma affects the legislative branch. It is true it affects
Members of Congress in their offices, but it affects much more. We just
had an overwhelming vote to give new responsibilities to the Government
Accountability Office. The next amendment up calls for cutting their
budget. I would say to the Senator from Oklahoma, you can't have it
both ways. You give new responsibilities to these agencies and then
say: We will give you less money to do it.
Let me suggest something else. When you start to leave this evening
to go home and you drive by the gate out here and you see, in the dark,
men and women in uniform risking their lives for us and for the
visitors to the Capitol, remember this vote. This vote cuts funds for
the Capitol Police and security in the Capitol. When the Senator from
Oklahoma was asked earlier, are you asking for too much in cuts, he
said: I want to keep cutting until they squeal. What will be the squeal
we hear when it comes to security from the Capitol? I am sorry to say
it might be an incident that none of us wants to see.
We want this to be a safe place. The Capitol Visitor Center has more
and more people coming in. Cutting security for the Capitol at this
point in time with the threats facing our Nation and the fact that we
work in one of the biggest targets in America is very shortsighted.
That is what happens when you cut across the board and you don't take a
look at the individual agencies involved. Please, for the security of
the Capitol and for the security of the people who visit it, vote no on
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is remarkable what length we will go to
defend our budgets. The fact is, the assumption Senator Durbin made is
that we are efficient. The fact is, we are not. Everybody in here could
turn back at least 10 percent of their budget if they ran their office
efficiently. We know that. Nothing in Washington is run efficiently. So
to say we can't do it without putting ourselves at risk is poppycock.
It is time for us to lead. Now is the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Mr. DURBIN. One thing I forgot to mention. Members of Congress
voluntarily forgo every cost-of-living adjustment each year. We decided
not to ask for a cost-of-living adjustment because we are in hard
times. To suggest that sacrifices are not being made is not accurate. I
urge my colleagues, vote against this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the Coburn Amendment, Division
No. II.
Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S243]]

There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennet
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
LeMieux
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--48

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kirk
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--6

Byrd
Mikulski
Roberts
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are
48. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this division, the division is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3303, Division III

There will now be 6 minutes of debate equally divided on Coburn
division III.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we are going to hear why we cannot do
this, kind of along with the debate we just heard from the majority
whip. But here are some examples for you. This is what the GAO found.
In 2005, 13 different Federal agencies spent $3 billion to fund 207
programs to encourage students to enter the field of math and science.
Mr. President, 207 different programs, and we are going to vote against
eliminating them here in just a minute.
In 2003, $30 billion was spent on 44 job-training programs
administered by 9 different Federal agencies. Fourteen departments
within the Federal Government, 49 independent agencies operate exchange
and study abroad programs. So 14 departments, 49 independent agencies
operate exchange and study abroad programs; 69 early education programs
administered by 9 different agencies; 23 Federal housing programs that
target or have special features for the elderly operated by 6 different
agencies.
That is just a minimal number.
We are going to hear why we cannot do this. The American people are
wanting to know when we are going to do what is right, what is
possible, and what is best for the long term, not the short term.
With that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma proposes to cut
$20 billion from programs which he describes as being redundant. Well,
take, for example, nursing. There are three different programs. They
are not redundant. One is for education; another is to train women and
men to go to rural areas, rural America, to serve; and the third is for
research. Yes, three different agencies handle that. It is for three
different purposes.
Then you have HUD. One of the sad facts of life is that tonight
658,000 American men, women, and children are going to go to bed
homeless, some of them with empty stomachs, some without blankets, and
we are going to cut 5 percent from housing for the homeless? This
amendment does that.
Then you have cuts for foreign operations. Senator Leahy spent some
time this afternoon explaining why this is foolish. We had an
accounting change because now we cover State Department activities in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
I think it is ill-advised to do what the Senator proposes because
these are not redundant. These are not wasteful. I think we could be
spending more for the homeless, but yet we are cutting this by this
amendment. I hope we reject this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what the American people are asking is,
Why aren't the three nursing programs combined so you have one set of
overhead to administer all three programs? That is what they are
asking. This does not cut any money for the homeless. What it says is,
put all the homeless programs under one set of administration where we
save money and are much more effective at what we are doing because we
are concentrating it within one area. We can have all sorts of reasons
why we cannot do it. Let's find the courage to do it for the American
people and the kids who follow.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the Coburn amendment, Division
III.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 61, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

YEAS--33

Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Risch
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--61

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--6

Byrd
Mikulski
Roberts
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 33, the nays are
61. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this division, the division is withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3303, Division IV

There will now be 6 minutes for debate equally divided on Coburn
Division No. IV.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, last year Federal agencies ended the
fiscal year with $657 billion in unobligated balances. There is no
question a great deal of that is associated with the war efforts and
other things, but according

[[Page S244]]

to OMB and CBO, approximately $100 billion of that has been sitting for
2 years or longer, never having been obligated for what we have
directed it to. So we have $100 billion sitting out there that the
agencies have not been able to spend. Obviously, if they haven't been
able to spend it in the last 2 years, it is not a priority. If, in
fact, we rescind that money to the Treasury, we will cut our deficit
$100 billion, and then we can reappropriate what is necessary for this
year. The rule in the Federal Government is after 2 years it is
supposed to go back to the Treasury anyway, which is not being enforced
for everybody except the Treasury Department. They are under that
obligation.
So here is an opportunity--it doesn't affect anything because the
money hasn't been obligated--to put it back in and start over and
reprioritize. That is all it is about. It will actually move $100
billion back and then our appropriators can decide whether they want to
put that back this year.
I appreciate your consideration on this amendment, and I reserve the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields?
The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this is a very serious amendment.
Potentially it could be damaging. It says, very simply, if the funds
are not obligated for 2 years, then it is rescinded. It sounds
reasonable, but I think it is no secret it takes longer than 2 years to
build a battleship. It takes more than 2 years to build an aircraft
carrier. It takes more than 2 years to build a hospital. Right now,
there are 43 VA hospitals being built. Are we going to cut them out?
What about the shipbuilding industry? Are we going to rescind that?
This amendment has potentially very dangerous consequences. I hope my
colleagues will vote against it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the dangerous consequences facing this
Nation aren't as outlined by the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee. The dangerous consequences facing this Nation are continued
spending and borrowing from the next generation and a creditworthiness
that is not going to even be BBB. There is no question there is danger
before us. It is not this amendment. It is the continuing efforts on
the part of those who are in Washington to not recognize the fact that
we are wasting money hand over fist and, in fact, we appropriate yearly
on many of these projects. So it will not eliminate any as outlined by
the chairman. It will give us a chance to reprioritize, which every
family in America is doing today.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is such a
second.
All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the Coburn amendment, Division IV.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) are
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 57, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 9 Leg.]

YEAS--37

Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--57

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--6

Byrd
Mikulski
Roberts
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 37, the nays are
57. Under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
the division, the division is withdrawn.
The Senator from Kansas is recognized.

Amendment No. 3309 to Amendment No. 3299

Mr. BROWNBACK. I think under a previous agreement I was to call up an
amendment. I ask that my amendment be callled up, No. 3309, which is at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are set aside and the
clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an
amendment numbered 3309 to amendment No. 3299.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the
following members as cosponsors to the amendment: Senators Chambliss,
Ensign, and Vitter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as I understand, there are no further
votes this evening, and there will not be votes tomorrow. We will have
this up Thursday, and we will debate it then and vote on it. I will put
in somewhat of a statement tonight and then talk about it further on
Thursday.
This is a commission that has been in front of this body several
times. We voted on it. It passed this body twice before in the budget
debates. It is CARFA, the Commission on the Accountability and Review
of Federal Agencies.
It is modeled exactly after the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission, the BRAC, that has been so successful on closing military
bases and consolidating assets and put the military in a better
position. This is the same thing. It is to all of government. It has
been voted on by this body twice before. It has passed this body. It is
done in the budget agreement. It is time it became the law of the land.
That is the process whereby we can actually cut government spending.
It is a simple process--eight members on the Commission, four appointed
by this body, four appointed by the House. For any recommendation to
move forward, it has to pass by six of eight members, so either party
cannot dominate or determine it. It has to be six of eight. It will
take one-fourth of the government each year for 4 years and review that
fourth of the Federal Government and make recommendations for closure
during that year's period of time.
The report for that year then is submitted to the appropriate
committees of jurisdiction for a period of 30 days. They can review the
report. They can hold hearings on the CARFA commission recommendations
for a period of 30 days. They can look it over and see which ones they
like, which ones they do not like, but they cannot amend it.
At the end of that 30 days, it is then subject to a privileged motion
to come in front of this body so it has to be voted on by this body
with a limit of 10 hours of debate prior to going to the motion, 10
hours of debate on the bill itself. It cannot be amended. Then it is an
up-or-down vote, with a 50-vote threshold of passage. It is a
privileged motion that comes in front of this body, with a majority
vote for it to pass through this body.
This is the way we will get spending under control and done. This is
an agreeable way. It is a way that has proven itself in the past. Now
is the time we have to do this.
I wish to show one chart that is new out today. It is no new news,
unfortunately. This one is new out today. This

[[Page S245]]

is the projection of our Federal debt as a percentage of GDP. That is
the one to watch, the projection of the Federal debt as a percentage of
GDP.
We can see what the January 2008 estimate of the Federal debt as a
percentage of our economy was supposed to be. Here is the percent of
the economy. We are pushing up 38 percent or so at this point in time.
In January 2008, this starts bending back down and moves to 20 percent
by 2020. Then we had the January 2009 estimate come in. We see there we
were getting up to mid-50 percent, and then it was going to bow back
down to 41 percent. That was last year's 2009 estimate.
This year, just out today--this is the estimate--2010 as a percent of
the economy, we are looking at our Federal debt as being midsixties, 67
percent, and staying at that level for the debt as a percentage of the
economy. These are terrible numbers. They are way too high. They are
stifling the economy. It is a nonsustainable position, and it is
something we have to fix.
Earlier today, we considered a commission that had both spending and
taxes in it. The American public is not for more taxes. They think they
are taxed out, and I believe they are too taxed. They should not be
taxed more. They do want us to cut spending. There is no question about
that. They want us to cut it prudently. They want us to cut in
wasteful, duplicative areas. That is what they want to get at. They
want core programs clearly taken care of. That is why we put it to a
bipartisan commission of individuals to look at. The recommendation has
to clear six of eight members so no party can control--four appointed
by Republicans, four appointed by Democrats--examined by the committees
and then put forward for a vote. This can work. This is what the public
wants us to do. It is time to do it.
We have to start bending this down, the debt to GDP. This is
dangerously high. It has not been this high since World War II. We
cannot sustain it. We have to pull it back down. I would love us to
start to cut spending and go through the committees and say we are
going to cut here, we are going to cut there. We have not been able to
do that under Republican or Democratic control of either branch of
government. We have not been able to go at that on an individual basis.
This is a system that has worked in the past. This is a system that
this body has approved in the past. It has been in budget agreements.
We have not made it all the way through in the budget agreement, but
Members in this body have voted on this system for controlling
spending.
If people want to come back later and say: We want to look at other
provisions or we want to add something back, they can do that in future
conferences. But this gets that culling process going.
I wish to point out one issue to my colleagues about the problem of
running high debt and its impact on the economy. If the Federal
Government runs a high debt level, it has a drag on the economy. There
is a recent study just released at an American Economics Association
meeting. The title of the study is ``Growth in a Time of Debt.'' It
said, according to the study, that the sharp runup in public sector
debt will likely prove one of the endearing legacies of the 2009
financial crisis in the United States and elsewhere. The study looked
at debt levels of 44 countries and included data over the last 200
years in order to get the most comprehensive picture possible, the
picture of debt on economic growth.
What does this big lug do to the overall economy? Does it have an
impact? They said, clearly, yes.
The conclusion is clear: Very high government debt, classified as 90
percent or more of gross domestic product, results in average growth
rates a full 4 percent below countries with lower debt levels. Since
annual growth rate and GDP is averaged considerably less than 4 percent
over the last 10 years in the United States, carrying high national
debt can mean the difference between a growing economy and a
contracting economy.
After the recent binge of Federal spending, our Nation's gross debt
could well surpass the 90 percent of GDP mark and go even above that,
to the point that could be the lug on the economy that keeps us from
growing and actually puts us in a contracting economy.
I urge my colleagues or members of the Senate staff to look at these
studies and look at the impact of debt on economic growth. This could
end up being the real lug of what happens during this period of time.
CARFA is a bipartisan mechanism that can work us out of this
situation. It pushes at the places we actually can cut and need to cut.
Everybody in this body believes, and I believe, there are clear places
in the Federal Government we can cut. For one reason or another, they
have become sacred cows and we have not been able to cut them. This is
a process that has worked on military bases before.
I will talk more about this amendment when we vote on it on Thursday.
I ask my colleagues, in the interim day, when we have a chance to look
at some of these things, to examine this process. It is one they have
seen before. I have proposed this bill for 10 years. They voted on it
before, as I stated earlier. I urge them to look at this and think: Now
is the time to do this. Maybe they had reservations about it in the
past or thought: I don't think we want to go into that sort of
mechanism now. But there is not another mechanism that works. This
changes the mechanism for spending in a way that has worked in the past
and, clearly, with these sort of debt numbers, the time has come to do
it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are now debating a resolution that would
raise the Federal debt ceiling, allowing the Federal Government to
borrow enough money to meet its obligations. I doubt anyone in this
Chamber is happy at the prospect of approving another such increase. I
know I am not. Yet we must approve it. Failure to pass this resolution
would do incalculable harm to our government's standing with financial
markets and endanger nearly every activity the government undertakes.
It would throttle the faint, fragile signs of recovery from the deepest
financial crisis in 75 years. Refusal to pass this resolution is not an
option. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to the jobs and income
of every American.
Yet the magnitude of this action is staggering. If successful in this
necessary endeavor, we will authorize the Treasury to carry more than
$13 trillion dollars in debt. That is more than $42,000 for every man,
woman, and child in the United States.
While the debt itself is enormous, the rate to which we have been
adding to it in recent years is equally staggering. The year President
Clinton left office, the government ran a $236 billion surplus. Yet,
after 8 years of Republican leadership, that surplus evaporated into a
mind-boggling $1.3 trillion deficit the day President Obama took
office.
The message of these numbers is simple: We cannot go on as we are. If
we do not change our budget policies, and change them a great deal, we
will plunge our economy into deep depression.
Discretionary spending and nondiscretionary spending alike must be
addressed. While some have successfully politicized earmark spending
and discretionary spending programs, good and bad alike, the simple
fact is that merely addressing these issues will not balance our
budgets.
In addition to meaningful spending reforms, we must also engage in
meaningful revenue reforms. The Bush-era tax cuts have already added
trillions to our debt. Most should not be renewed. We also should end
loopholes that allow corporations to hide income in offshore entities
and people to hide their assets and income overseas.
But the fact is that most of our budget choices are not easy. And it
is precisely because these choices are so difficult that we find
ourselves where we are now. So it is worth considering how we got into
this situation and how we might get out of it and whether the amendment
to this resolution to be offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg presents
a possible solution.
First, let me respond to those who seem to have just recently
discovered the importance of the Federal debt. Many of the people
bemoaning budget deficits today are the same people who advocated a
series of policies under the previous administration that added

[[Page S246]]

greatly to our deficits, including enormous tax cuts mainly for the
wealthiest. No effort was made to pay for that policy or the two wars.
They were financed by debt.
In fact, to the extent that our budget outlook is significantly worse
at the end of this decade than it was in the beginning, decisions by
the previous administration are by far the biggest contributor to the
problem. In parceling out the blame for our massive deficit, one expert
said, the Obama administration ``is like a relief pitcher who enters a
game in the fourth inning trailing 19-0 and allows another run to
score. The extra run is nothing to cheer about, of course, but fans
should be far angrier with the starting pitcher.''
However we reached this point, it is our responsibility now to
address the consequences of failing to act. That is why I believe the
amendment offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg is worthy of
consideration.
Briefly, they propose to establish a task force to recommend changes
to our budget policies to address our long-term fiscal crisis. The task
force would consist of 18 members: 16 Members of Congress, equally
divided between House and Senate and majority and minority, and 2
administration officials, the Treasury Secretary and another
Presidential appointee. Recommendations would require approval of 14 of
the commission's 18 members. Those recommendations would be referred to
the Budget Committee and other committees of jurisdiction in each
Chamber and then move automatically to floor votes in each Chamber,
where passage would require a three-fifths vote.
There is much to recommend this approach. Our fiscal problem is so
large partly because it is so politically difficult to address.
Repairing our finances will require some combination of spending cuts
and tax increases, and spending cuts and tax increases are rarely
politically popular. The use of a task force to recommend difficult but
necessary choices for the common good has been successful in the past,
in several rounds of military base closings and with the Greenspan
Commission on Social Security reform in 1983.
But this approach is not without flaw. One is the structure of the
task force, which would include two executive branch appointees.
Some have argued that the legislative commission must include members
from the executive branch to achieve Presidential buy-in on the
commission's proposal. And I agree that gaining the support of the
administration is vital in this effort. But in seeking that buy-in, I
do not believe it is either necessary or proper to give executive
branch officials votes, which are potentially decisive votes, on
recommendations that would bypass the Senate's rules and procedures.
The proper way to achieve Presidential buy-in is through Presidential
communication and consultation and the threat of an actual Presidential
veto of a task force proposal, if passed by the Congress, if it is
objectionable to the President. The appropriate buy-in before Congress
acts could also be advanced with ex officio membership for the two
executive appointees.
I was pleased that the task force proposal we are voting on today no
longer gives the task force power to recommend changes to the Standing
Rules of the Senate. That is a welcome change from its prior
iterations. Successfully tackling our fiscal crisis will require far-
reaching legislation, and procedural hurdles in both chambers make
passing any far-reaching legislation extraordinarily difficult. But any
permanent procedural changes in our rules should be made by the Members
themselves in each Chamber and not through this process.
Despite my reservations, particularly about voting membership for
executive branch officials on a congressional commission that has the
power to bypass the normal rules of our body for consideration of its
recommendations, I believe Senators Conrad and Gregg have offered a way
forward. Their 60-vote requirement for positive congressional approval
of the task force's recommendations does significantly protect
congressional prerogatives. It also is clear that our current political
climate and ways of doing business have been unequal to the task.
Addressing our deficit requires bold action. The consequences of
failure to act are too severe for us to miss this chance to act. I will
vote for the Conrad-Gregg proposal.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________