Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

Mr. President, today is September 29, which means that fiscal year 2010 will come to an end tomorrow at midnight. We should all keep that in mind because in order to avoid a government shutdown, the Senate must act now to send this essential legislation to the House of Representatives.

I do not believe any of my colleagues wish the Government of the United States to be shut down on Friday, so I am hopeful we can avoid unnecessary amendments and work in a bipartisan fashion to pass this CR and send it to the House.

This is a clean continuing resolution that includes only those exceptions that are critical to allow the government to carry out its responsibilities. I would note that according to the CBO scoring of this bill, this resolution will fund the government through December 3, 2010, at a rate that is approximately $8.2 billion below fiscal year 2010 enacted levels.

Vice Chairman Cochran and I have done our best to ensure that this CR includes only the bare minimum of what is necessary to continue government operations until Members on both sides of the aisle are able to work out their differences and complete action on this year's appropriations bills.

In addition, the CR extends the temporary assistance for the Needy Families block grant program, which provides necessities such as food and clothing for those hardest hit by the struggling economy. This resolution also extends the current GSE loan limits, to prevent a disruption of the home mortgage market. Finally, this measure will fund current military operations for the next 2 months, ensuring that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will have what they need to carry out their missions.

While I know there are many additional matters which the administration and other Members of the Senate wish to have included, we have been unable to reach a bipartisan agreement to do so. But I can assure my colleagues that everything essential to continue government services has been included.

Time is short, and we have before us a clean CR that has the bare minimum of exceptions necessary to avoid disruptions to government services that is approximately $8.2 billion below fiscal year 2010 levels, and that has the approval of both the majority and minority leaders.

I urge my colleagues to vote to support this CR and to send it to the House as quickly as possible.

I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time expended during the quorum call be equally divided on both sides.

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

Mr. President, a cursory review of the record will indicate that the Appropriations Committee has 12 subcommittees. Eleven of these subcommittees have reported their bills to the full committee, and they have all passed. They are on the desk, ready to go. But something has happened in the interim.

I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that the bulk of them--by that, I mean nine of the subcommittee bills--were passed by the middle of July. That is a long time ago. We have had hearings with not one or two witnesses but hundreds of witnesses. We have discussed and debated all of the items in the measure, and we present that to the floor and we try to schedule them, but there are holds and threats of filibuster and such. Therefore, I want the Senate to know that the Appropriations Committee has done its utmost to make certain that these measures are passed in the regular order.

One subcommittee has not been able to conclude its resolution because a new budget agreement just came in--a budget amendment which the committee has to consider, and therefore they have to look it over. We are not just cursorily rubberstamping every budget amendment.

Amendment No. 4674

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

Mr. President, I have a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I will. I did not see the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, if I may again repeat, in June of this year, 9 of the 11 subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee passed their bills in the full committee and reported to the desk. They are all at the desk. But somebody held it up, and I can assure you none of us held it up.

I rise to speak against the amendment just submitted by Senator DeMint, which would extend the CR from the current expiration date of December 3 to February 4 of next year.

I am certain most of my colleagues are aware that the government frequently operates under a short-term continuing resolution, not because they like to do it but because it takes time. It is not the most efficient way to operate. I agree with that. But it is frequently necessary as we resolve the differences over spending levels.

While our agencies decry living under the CR--and I have said many times that this is not the way to run our government--I believe these agencies have learned to operate in the short term, and I emphasize the two words ``short term.'' This CR was crafted with a very narrow focus in the expectation that it would only last 2 months. It was agreed upon by both leaders, the majority and minority leaders.

The minimal authorization extensions were included in a bipartisan attempt to keep this bill as clean as possible. Many requested anomalies were excluded because it was clear the CR would expire on December 3. Hopefully, the Congress will have concluded its work by that date. If not, a new CR will be required, and I can assure my colleagues that it will be significantly longer than this bill, with many more anomalies to cover exceptions that must be continued if this CR is extended.

A short-term CR is not efficient, as I have said before, but it is manageable. However, each week we go beyond that period, we further damage the ability of the government to function effectively. For example, contract awards can be delayed a month or two but not for 4 months.

The Appropriations Committee has worked very hard. We have held many hearings, heard from hundreds of witnesses--not just the administration but opposition witnesses--and in a truly bipartisan fashion come to an agreement on the CR we have before us. A large part of that effort was based on the good-faith assumption that once we agreed on an end date-- in this case, December 3--Members and staff would use that date to properly identify programs that needed adjustments in order to function as they were intended.

If we accept this amendment and arbitrarily change the end date to February 4 of next year, we will ensure that the exact opposite will happen: The Government will not function as it should. Let me offer a few specific examples.

As chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, I know there are programs essential to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that would be disrupted if the Senate were to arbitrarily change the end date of the CR. To say that our troops deserve better is an understatement of the highest order. As a specific example, the Defense Subcommittee carefully reviewed the plans of the Department of Defense and the Department of State for the authorities under the Pakistan counterinsurgency fund. This authority allows the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to provide funding for initiatives to reduce the terrorist presence in Pakistan. The subcommittee concluded that a 2-month delay would have minimal negative impact. However, stretching beyond 2 months could seriously erode our counterinsurgency efforts in Pakistan.

As my colleagues know, new starts are prohibited under CRs, so a CR through February 4 would restrict the DOD from proceeding with any new military construction projects during the first third of the fiscal year. Losing 4 months of the year before DOD can begin to implement its 2011 construction program puts the timely execution of the entire program at risk. Fifty percent of the requested funding is anticipated to be awarded by the end of February 2011.

A longer term CR would result in untimely delays for implementing certain farm bill programs, as requested by the Office of Management and Budget. The delay would present shortfalls in funding for food and drug safety approval programs at the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration due to a shortfall in the budget authority.

A longer term CR would result in untimely delays for implementing certain farm bill programs, as requested by OMB. The delay would present shortfalls in funding for food and drug safety and approval programs at the Food Safety and Inspection Service and Food and Drug Administration due to a shortfall in new budget authority. In addition, if the child nutrition reauthorization is not approved, a further delayed CR will result in reduced food services for children.

As another example, the administration sought to extend a highway provision of interest to Maine and Vermont but since it does not expire until December 17, it was not necessary to include in this CR. But if the CR does not expire until February, that provision is needed.

A final example. The delays that would result from this amendment would stall the implementation of all planned new law enforcement initiatives at the Justice Department, including $366 million in new national security spending intended to improve the FBI's cyber security, WMD and counterterrorism capabilities and to assist in the litigation of intelligence and terrorism cases.

This CR was negotiated in good faith, it has bipartisan support, and it ensures the government will continue to operate in good order until December 3. This amendment violates all three of those tenets. Arbitrarily changing the end date violates our good faith, is highly partisan, and ensures that the government will not function as it should.

For all of these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be divided equally.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Cardin, chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this measure, I object.

Mr. President, I am concerned about the problem in Florida. I am well aware there may be some consternation. But I must once again remind the Senate that we are now considering the continuing resolution as a result of a bipartisan agreement reached by the majority leader and the minority leader. That agreement calls for a clean CR. There are many amendments that my colleagues would like to submit, but we have had to say, reluctantly, no. Therefore, I object.

Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Thune amendment. There are a number of reasons the Thune amendment is a bad idea. A 5-percent cut across the board may seem reasonable, small, and not a big cut. But it is a devastating cut when Members understand the specific programmatic impact. A 5-percent cut against non-national security accounts would be about $20 billion below the current fiscal year spending level. This cut would be in addition to the current CR level which is $18 billion below the Sessions amendments offered earlier this year.

I remind my colleagues that we have a $5 billion problem outside of all this cutting in terms of addressing the Pell grants shortfall. I believe the vast majority of my colleagues are in favor of the Pell grants. I can assure them that the Pell grant problem is not going to magically cure itself.

Members may try and hide from taking responsibility for the devastating impacts of a generic across-the-board cut of this magnitude, but I am standing before my colleagues now and putting everyone in this Chamber on notice for what the actual impact of passing this amendment will be.

For starters, let me discuss America's security outside of the Department of Homeland Security and outside of the department that handles the southwest border. Cutting funding by 5 percent would mean a loss of $1.5 billion for the Department of Justice. It is not part of Homeland Security and not part of the Defense Department. The FBI's uniform crime report that was just released tells us that violent crime is down 5.3 percent, a decrease for the third year in a row, and a total 9 percent drop since 2006. Now is not the time to cut resources for Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners. We depend on Federal law enforcement to protect Americans from terrorism and violent crime and uphold the rule of law.

Cutting Federal law enforcement by 5 percent across the board would mean 1,650 fewer FBI agents to combat terrorist threats, 420 fewer DEA agents to reduce the flow of drugs across the U.S.-Mexican border, and over 2,000 fewer Federal correctional officers to safeguard our prisons.

In addition to the cuts to the Department of Justice, this amendment would reduce funding for the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network by $8.8 billion. Cuts of this magnitude would cripple the Treasury Department's unique efforts to keep our country safe.

Specifically, the Office of Foreign Assets Control would be forced to cut staff who enforce the Iran and North Korea sanctions programs and sanctions efforts aimed at al-Qaida and its affiliates, terrorist groups in Afghanistan, international drug traffickers, and other national security threats.

The Treasury Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis would be forced to cut staff who work to locate hidden funding sources of terrorist networks. Finally, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network would significantly reduce overseas staff who work with foreign government counterparts in support of law enforcement efforts, investigations that protect Americans.

In terms of our consumers and our small business owners, cutting the budget of the CFTC and the SEC by 5 percent would erode their ability to conduct necessary oversight of the futures and securities markets, respectively, at a time when such scrutiny is paramount. Such a move is simply irresponsible, given the Wall Street scandals that led to the financial meltdown and economic strife plaguing so many American households.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected to funding any anomalies that would have allowed these agencies to increase staffing during the pendency of the continuing resolution to implement the Dodd- Frank requirements. To insist on a further cut in light of these new requirements is not responsible. For the CFTC, a rollback would diminish aggressive efforts in the past 18 months to enhance previously decimated staffing levels which would not have been adequate to keep pace with the growing markets the agency oversees.

The SEC would suffer similar erosion of critical seasoned professionals. During the past 2 years, efforts have been made to restore staffing shortages. This amendment will force these staff to be furloughed, which would undermine the significant strides to become a more aggressive and vigilant protector of American investors.

Funding for the Small Business Administration would be cut at a critical point in the Nation's economic recovery, severely diminishing the agency's ability to implement the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act recently signed into law. Such a cut would hamper the ability of the Small Business Administration to provide counseling services to small businesses at a time when they need it most.

Cuts to Small Business Development Centers, microloan technical assistance, SCORE, and the Women's Business Centers would be a blow to SBA's ability to assist citizens trying to start, sustain, or grow their small businesses.

In terms of public safety, the FAA faces challenges in maintaining an adequate workforce of trained air traffic controllers. Funding the FAA at 5 percent below the fiscal year 2010 level would force it to absorb almost $500 million in cost-of-living and inflation expenses. Since 75 percent of the FAA's operation budget is payroll, the FAA would need to implement a hiring freeze, thereby reducing its air traffic controller and inspector workforces, increasing flight delays, and curbing air travel at many airports.

When it comes to NASA, this amendment would require $936 million less in funding. I have heard from many Members concerned about job losses at NASA facilities in their States. I can assure you, the level of funding that will result from this amendment will only expedite these losses.

Specifically, this random across-the-board cut will jeopardize scientific discovery as well as the development of a new heavy-lift launch vehicle and space capsule, costing thousands of high-tech, high- skill jobs in States such as Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Colorado. The United States would abandon the high ground of space to Russia, China, and Europe, sacrificing our leadership.

In terms of environmental funding, this amendment would require a $174 million cut to EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. That means 58 fewer sewer and water projects in our communities to ensure clean and safe water.

It would also require a $302 million cut to the basic operating accounts at the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. That means approximately 2,000 fewer Park Rangers, Forest Rangers, refuge managers, and BLM managers.

The 5-percent cut proposed in this amendment would require the National Park Service to furlough virtually all of the seasonal employees that would result in the closing of many National Park facilities. Further, it would cut energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by over $145 million, stopping in its tracks evolving R&D on solar energy and electric vehicles. That is what we have been talking about here: alternative energy sources. It would cut the nuclear energy R&D program by $51 million, hampering the nuclear renaissance, and simultaneously it would hamper the cleanup of our nuclear weapon and civilian nuclear sites by cutting $366 million from those programs. This action calls into question our ability to undertake new weapon and civilian nuclear activities if we cannot deal with the back end of the programs.

In terms of our senior citizens, the most vulnerable in our society, this amendment requires a cut of $40 million to senior nutrition services at the Administration on Aging, which translates into a reduction of 13 million senior meals.

It also requires a cut of $922 million from the fiscal year 2010 operating level for the Social Security Administration. This would force the Social Security Administration to furlough employees and severely increase the waiting times for everyone with a disability claim, retirement claim, or disability appeal.

In the last 3 years, the number of disability claims SSA has received has increased 30 percent, the number of disability hearings has increased 20 percent, and the number of retirement claims has increased 13 percent. By the end of the year, this cut would leave 900,000 more Americans waiting on a determination of their disability claim, almost doubling the current backlog, and 150,000 more waiting on an appeal of their disability case. This would also drastically limit program integrity efforts that save $7 for every $1 spent.

Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance, which helps the Nation's most vulnerable individuals and families find and maintain safe and affordable housing in the private market, would be cut by $816 million, which would put as many as 85,000 of our country's low-income families, elderly, and disabled at risk of losing their housing.

Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record a more comprehensive list of programs that will be severely impacted by this amendment. There are too many important programs being impacted by this amendment and not enough time to discuss them all.

I ask unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.

In closing, I would like to note that the CR that is being considered by the Senate this afternoon is at a rate that is $18 billion below the Sessions amendment. The amendment being proposed by the Senator from South Dakota proposes a rate that is an additional $23 billion below the Sessions amendment.

To ask our agencies to continue to operate for the next 2 months at a rate that is $41 billion below the Sessions amendment will be devastating and is simply unacceptable. Under this scenario, every single program gets cut.

I believe what I have provided my colleagues is a thorough analysis of exactly what you are cutting. Make no mistake, a vote for this amendment is a vote for cutting these programs. It is that simple. I, for one, do not believe this is the way Congress should be doing business, and I will oppose this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, I ask that the time be divided equally between both sides.

Mr. President, the Appropriations Committee worked in a bipartisan fashion on this bill. It was crafted with a very narrow focus and the expectation that it will last only 2 months. As we all know, the short-term CR is not efficient, but it is manageable. For the many reasons I enumerated earlier, we know that if we accept this amendment, the government will not be able to function as it should. I urge that we vote no.

Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes talking about where we are. There is no question the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has finished his bills, and they have not come up. But the quality of the work doesn't meet with the depth of the problem we have today, No. 1; No. 2, it doesn't address the concerns of the American public.

So we are going to have a continuing resolution that we are going to pass through this body tonight, probably by a vote of about 80 to 20 or 75 to 25. But the signal we are sending is based on our tin ear. We are going to continue spending at the same rate we have been spending. We are borrowing $4.2 billion a day under this continuing resolution. The government now is twice as big, in terms of expenditures, not including the war, as it was in 1999. We are not addressing what the American people want us to address; that is, that we ought to start living within our means.

I will not offer an amendment to the bill. There are several amendments. My colleague from South Dakota offered one that will bring us back to 2008 levels, but that is not enough. The fact is, we have to engage the American public in what is rightfully a cogent criticism of the Congress; that is, that we are allowing wasteful Washington spending to go on, not by intent--and I am not questioning anybody's motives--but the fact is, we have not done our job in terms of oversight.

We heard Senator McCain talk about the tax cuts and raising taxes during a very soft economic time. The vast majority of the Americans don't want us to do that. I don't know why we are not discussing it, and I don't know why we are leaving town before we send that signal, but that is way above my pay grade.

What I will tell you is, I can take any group of Americans and sit down and go through this with them and show them, without question, $350 billion worth of waste every year in the Federal Government. The amendment of my colleague from South Dakota is cutting less than $50 billion from what we are going to spend--in fact, we did it in 2008, other than for homeland security, defense, and veterans. So even though I love what my colleague is doing, it doesn't go nearly far enough compared to what the real need is for us.

There are two real needs. One, if we are going to finance the debt we have today, we have to send a message and signal to the world that we are interested in getting our house back in order, that we are interested in becoming efficient, and interested in becoming austere with our taxpayers' money. The second message we need to send is to those who have capital in this country; that they, in fact, can have confidence that we are going to right this ship, and we will start seeing them deploy some of those assets to create the very jobs we so desperately want for the American people who do not have them today.

I have been here long enough to know what is going to happen. But what I wish to do is register my dissatisfaction that we are not addressing the real problems in front of our country today. Instead, we are ducking out on tough decisions so we can go home--and I am up for reelection as well--and get to the voters. My question is a much more powerful message than going to the voters; it is us making hard choices that the American people want us to make.

This week, the 2010 fiscal year is coming to a close. On October 1, 2010, it will become the new budget year. Here is what we failed to do as a body--our fault just as much as yours. We didn't pass a budget. We didn't set priorities. We didn't decide where to spend and where to save. We didn't pay for new spending--$266 billion in the last 6 months in this Congress on new spending that we waived pay-go on and borrowed it against our children. We didn't pass any appropriations bills. We didn't make any tough choices. We didn't conduct any significant oversight on the waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government or the duplication in the Federal Government. We didn't eliminate any duplicative or ineffective programs--not one. We didn't do our job. No wonder America is disgusted with us.

What did we do? We increased the debt limit to more than $14 trillion. We added more than $1.4 trillion to the deficit and charged it to our grandchildren. We ignored the Constitution and expanded Washington's reach into our private lives, shrinking freedom

and growing government. We put ourselves first and the country second. Despite promises from us that government programs can solve every challenge, taxpayers are getting ripped off. We sent $1 trillion of their income to the Treasury this year just to watch it waste $350 billion. At the same time, we created a lot of new programs, and some people are very proud of them. I am very worried about them. But I give you the credit that you went down the road you thought was right and did it.

The real problem is, we are continuing the same old habits. The real issue is, until we truly understand the severity of the difficulty we are in and start acting like we understand it, this ship is going to continue to sink. We are not going to create the confidence in the American public or the $2 trillion that is sitting on the sidelines right now if, in fact, they had a clear signal it would start flowing into investment and capital that would create jobs.

Last December, my office spent 3 weeks just looking at duplicative programs. When we passed the debt limit, we agreed with an amendment I inserted that the GAO would give us a list of those. They are starting that work, and this February we will see the first large tranche of that. It is going to take 3 years to compile that because the government is so big.

We ought to have a little taste, and the American people ought to have a little taste, of what we didn't get rid of and didn't fix. We have 1,399 Federal programs that serve rural America; 337 of them are considered key. One thousand of them aren't considered key. They are not considered substantive. That is before you even take the test of saying whether they are authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

The Federal Government operates 70 programs costing tens of billions of dollars that provide domestic food assistance--70 different programs--and many of them overlap or are inefficient. Most of them cannot demonstrate they are effective. That is according to a recent review by the Government Accounting Office. We didn't fix it. We could have saved taxpayers some of that money. There are 14 programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education related to foreign exchanges and designed to increase opportunities for students to study abroad. Why do we have 14 programs? Why not have one good one that meets the needs of Americans?

We fund 44 job training programs, administered by 9 Federal agencies across the bureaucracy. The cost is $30 billion a year, and we don't know what the overhead is because we have 44 programs instead of 2 or 3. We didn't address any of that. There are 17 offender reentry programs across 5 Federal agencies, costing $\1/4\ billion. There has been no oversight. In other words, we have not looked where the problems are. We have not looked to say: How do we make this government more efficient?

What we have done is to say we are going to raise taxes--or at least we are not going to vote on raising taxes until after the election. No matter whether you are middle income, lower income, or upper income, it makes no sense for us to say we need more money here, when we will not do the very simple job of eliminating the waste.

I don't question the motivation for job training programs; I think they are necessary. I don't question the motivation for food programs; I think they are necessary. But 44 and 70 different programs, with 70 sets of bureaucracies and 44 sets of bureaucracies? Then we are going to tell Americans they should pay more tax, when we will not even do the simple thing to save $100 million here or there. With a $30 billion program, if you save 10 percent, that is $3 billion. So all you have to save is one-tenth of 1 percent or three-tenths of 1 percent. We will not even do that.

I have a book full of duplicative programs. It is available to anybody who wants it. We ought to ask what kind of rating or grade would the American people give us--Republicans and Democrats alike--in terms of running the government, funding the government, and working to make the government efficient and effective. I don't think we have any good defense. I think people's intentions around here are excellent, but we never get around to the hard work of holding the bureaucracies accountable.

Senator Carper had a great hearing today on the Defense Department and the fact that the Defense Department is trying to get where they can manage what they are doing by measuring it with a significant system, in terms of IT. It is just $6.9 billion over budget. Where is the oversight on that procurement? What the GAO said is the following: The management was ineffective at looking at those programs. The management was ineffective in the testing of those programs during their development. The management was ineffective in terms of the procurement of those programs. When I asked the heads of every branch in the military whether they agreed with that, they said, yes, they agreed they were ineffective.

We don't have anything in the appropriations bills to change that effectiveness. We didn't have anything in the Defense authorization bill to change that effectiveness. We are just going to let it go on, and next year it will be $7.9 billion or $8.9 billion over. So we are not doing our job.

That is not to question my colleagues' motive; it is to raise the awareness that the jig is up. The American people know we are not doing our job. They want us to start doing our job--both Republicans and Democrats.

We have several colleagues on the floor. Rather than take more time, I just note that I am consistent in terms of coming down here and worrying about our future. I have done so for 5\1/2\ years--much to the chagrin of a lot of my colleagues. I wish to leave you with one statement.

Our children deserve to have the same opportunities in this country that we have experienced. By us failing to do the very duties that are called upon us in a rational, straightforward basis, of doing oversight of the Federal Government and making the hard choices, we abandon our oath, but, more importantly, we steal the heritage that was given to us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment No. 4676 and ask that it be made pending.

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

Mr. President, as you know, the budget-appropriations process has broken down. Neither the House nor the Senate passed a budget resolution which provides a basic roadmap for our spending decisions for the next fiscal year.

As a result of not having a budget, not a single appropriations bill has been signed into law for the new fiscal year that starts tomorrow at midnight. The House has passed only 2 of its 12 appropriations bills. Unfortunately, this 17-percent batting average, 17-percent success rate surpasses the Senate which has failed to pass any of the 12 appropriations bills.

Because of this, we find ourselves considering a measure to provide stopgap funding through December 3 to provide more time for completion of our annual appropriations bills.

This delay and lack of floor debate on any of the annual appropriations bills has prevented us from having a much needed debate on the size of government and the amount of money we should be spending.

Keep in mind, the overall growth in nondefense spending since 2008 has amounted to roughly 21 percent at a time when inflation has amounted to only 3.5 percent. This excludes any mention of the $814 billion stimulus bill.

The continuing resolution before us today seeks to provide funding at the same rate as fiscal year 2010. I will say that I am somewhat pleased to see that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have not attempted to add other funding measures to this measure. That is commendable that we at least are going to do a continuing resolution that is relatively speaking clean. It would be my preference to dial back the overall spending level to the fiscal year 2008 levels.

I have introduced legislation that will do just that, as have some of my colleagues. Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma has a bill that will do that. Some of my House colleagues have come up with a similar proposal that will do that. I guess I would say to my colleague from Oklahoma who just got up and spoke and mentioned this amendment probably does not go far enough that I do not disagree. Frankly, I would like to see us go back to the 2008 levels.

What I am trying to do today is seek the support of my colleagues to at least take a measured step in reducing discretionary spending. My amendment simply seeks to reduce by 5 percent accounts not related to defense, homeland security, or veterans. This would not affect funding for the START treaty or any of the other new provisions in this continuing resolution.

On an annualized rate, it would, however, save us about $22 billion compared to the $1.25 trillion score that CBO has provided for the proposed continuing resolution before us today.

While this is a modest number and it is not going to solve our debt problems overnight, it is a necessary first step to reduce spending. Since nondefense discretionary spending has grown over 21 percent in the last 2 years--again, at a time when inflation was only 3.5 percent--I think the least we can do is support this reasonable reduction until we return after the election to decide what the remaining funding level should be for the fiscal year 2011 spending bills.

To put things into context as my colleague from Oklahoma, who just finished speaking, has done, we are looking at a $13.4 trillion debt. Our deficit for 2010 is estimated to be $1.3 trillion. About 40 cents out of every dollar that is spent in Washington, DC, by the Federal Government now is borrowed.

If we look at the last 34 years, there have only been four times--4 years--where all the appropriations bills have been passed on schedule.

If we actually did go to a freeze at 2008 spending levels and index it for inflation, it would save $450 billion over 10 years. That makes a lot of sense.

As I said, that is legislation I introduced earlier. At a minimum, what we ought to be able to do is say to the American people, at a time when many of their family budgets are shrinking, at a time when they are trying to make ends meet, that we get it. In Washington, DC, we understand: You want our Federal Government to do with a little bit less.

What I am proposing is a 5-percent haircut; that is all, 5 percent. That is the least we can do for the American people at a time when, as I said, we are running these $1.3 trillion deficits and have future generations of Americans faced with a massive amount of debt that will be on their backs for generations to come.

I hope today we can find the political will in the Senate to take what I think is a very modest, a very measured approach to reduce spending in this continuing resolution by 5 percent. When we come back in December, we can have a full-blown debate about what the size of government should be, which we should be having now and should have been having throughout the course of these last few months when these appropriations bills should have been debated and should have passed a budget.

That being said, we do not have a budget. We have not passed appropriations bills. We are where we are. The least we can do, in fairness to the American people, the taxpayers of this country, is send a clear message to them that we are going to do a modest amount, at least a 5-percent reduction over last year's level in this continuing resolution and try in a very small way to get some of the overspending that is occurring in Washington, DC, under control.

Mr. President, 21 percent over the past 2 years at a time when the inflation rate was 3.5 percent, meaning that we are spending at the Federal level five to six times the rate of inflation, what the rate of price increases are across this country for most Americans. That is not fair to the American taxpayers. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

The Senator from Massachusetts is here. I believe he wants to speak as well to this issue and to this amendment. I yield as much time to him as he may consume.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Massachusetts yields the floor, will he yield for a question?

I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he is hearing from his constituents back in his State the same message I hear from my constituents in South Dakota; that is, we are experiencing economic difficulties. In this economic downturn, many people lost jobs, many had a loss of income, many family budgets are being squeezed.

Does not the Senator from Massachusetts hear the same thing from his constituents I hear from South Dakotans; that is, we want the Federal Government to lead by example, and rather than growing at four, five, six times the rate of inflation, actually take some steps to get its spending under control in the same fashion, the same way we are having to do it?

That is what I hear from people in South Dakota. They are tired. They think the Federal Government is growing too fast, has gotten too big. They think it is a runaway train, especially when it is running $1.3 trillion annual deficits.

I think 5 percent on this particular continuing resolution, this funding bill is a modest amount that at least most of my constituents would think is reasonable.

I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he thinks his constituents believe this Federal Government could live with 5 percent less at a time when they are living with a lot less in many circumstances?

Mr. President, if I might just say to the Senator from Massachusetts, again, I appreciate his willingness to come down here and express his support for this amendment. The Senator from South Carolina is here. I expect he will speak too. He has an amendment he would like to offer as well.

Most Americans believe government spends too much, especially at a time when their budgets, as I said, have been shrinking.

This is the kind of amendment that ought to attract broad bipartisan support. We are going to fund the government with this continuing resolution until December 3 because, again, we have not passed any appropriations bills or a budget--which, by the way is a discussion, perhaps, for another day but one that I think needs to be joined, a debate that needs to be joined, and that is, what are we going to do to fix this broken-down budget process that year after year puts us in a position where, at the very end of the fiscal year, we have to pass a continuing resolution because we have not gotten our work done? That is an incredibly strange way to run a $3.5 trillion enterprise like the Federal Government.

I think the American people deserve better. They need a budget process that has some teeth in it, that is binding, that makes sense, where there is an appropriate role for oversight, as the Senator from Oklahoma pointed out--all the agencies where there is duplication and redundancy where we can find savings. We don't do a lot of that around here because we have a budget process that has broken down.

I have a bill to reform the budget process which, again, I hope is something we can undertake. It is not going to happen now because we are going to wrap things up here this week, it seems. I would be happy to stay around and talk about budget reform, but I think a lot of my colleagues have other things and other places they want to go.

In the meantime, let's at least do something here that will rein in Federal spending and send a very important message and signal to the American people, who have been hurting: The Federal Government here in Washington doesn't live in a bubble, we actually get it, we are listening to the voices of the American people, and we can find a mere 5 percent in our Federal budget, this massive Federal budget, and demonstrate we are willing to tighten our belt a little bit, consistent with what is happening to the American people and the experience they are having in this economic downturn.

I reserve the remainder of my time. I do not know how much time I have left, but I reserve the remainder of my time on this amendment.

Mr. President, obviously we are 1 day away from the end of the fiscal year. We have before us a continuing resolution, better known as a CR. It totals over $1.1 trillion to fund the operations of the Federal Government through December 3, after the elections.

In addition to continuing appropriations, this measure also includes numerous authorizing provisions from the fiscal year 2011 Defense authorization bill. We shouldn't have to selectively tack important, defense-related provisions on to appropriations bills in order to meet the pressing needs of the Armed Forces.

The majority has decided to wait until the very last minute to bring this stopgap measure to the floor with the hope that Members will simply vote yes so that we can all go home and focus on the upcoming elections. I will not be voting yes. I will be voting no. If we pass this resolution, we can be assured that we will be considering yet another massive omnibus spending bill in December. The simple fact that we are considering this continuing resolution is evidence of the majority's inability to lead effectively and do the people's business.

As I said, we are 1 day from the end of the fiscal year. This body has not considered a single one of the annual appropriations bills on the floor. We have a $13.5 trillion debt and a deficit of nearly $1.4 trillion. Yet we have not debated a single spending bill or considered any amendments that would cut costs or get our debt under control.

Furthermore, the majority decided they just didn't feel like doing a budget this year, so we didn't do a budget this year.

On top of all of this, the majorities in both Houses have decided there will be no debate, no vote on extending the tax cuts that are due to expire at the end of this year. On Monday of this week, the New York Times published an editorial called ``Profiles in Timidity.'' The editorial stated, in part:

We are starting to wonder whether Congressional Democrats

lack the courage of their convictions, or simply lack

convictions.

Last week, Senate Democrats did not even bother to schedule

a debate, let alone a vote, on the expiring Bush tax cuts.

This week, House Democrats appeared poised to follow suit.

The New York Times goes on to say:

This particular failure to act was not about Republican

obstructionism . . . This was about Democrats failing to

seize an opportunity to do the right thing and at the same

time draw a sharp distinction between themselves and the

Republicans.

Those are not my words; those are the words of the New York Times.

Anyone who converses with people in the business community around this country, whether it be small businesspeople or whether it be the largest, all of them will say the same thing: We have no certainty about what the financial future will hold, whether we will see tax increases or whether we will see tax cuts. What about the estate tax? What about all of these other ``tax cuts'' that will or will not be extended?

So rather than act one way or the other, we have now punted the ball down the field until after the election. At least we should have taken it up and debated and voted. I will stand by my vote to extend all the tax cuts because I don't believe we should increase anybody's taxes in tough economic times. But instead we will punt, go home, campaign, and then sometimes be curious why the approval rating of Congress is somewhere in the teens.

We have no business at the eleventh hour considering a continuing resolution so we can pack up and go home. We should stay here, in session, and consider each and every appropriations bill in regular order and give Members ample opportunity to offer amendments. Following that, we should debate the Defense authorization bill and consider all amendments by Members, not just those the majority deems necessary to please their base.

When the authorization bill was proposed to be brought up on the floor of the Senate, on this side, we said: Let's have 10 amendments on either side--10 amendments on each side--and we will move forward with regular debate and votes. The majority leader didn't want that to happen. The majority leader only wanted to consider don't ask, don't tell, secret holds, and the DREAM Act, and then take the bill off the floor and wait until--guess what--after the elections. That is not how this body should operate. We should consider all amendments. We would agree to time agreements. And if there are tough votes to be taken, that is why we are sent here--to take tough votes.

We should debate and vote on whether to extend the tax cuts, as I said. Each day this issue is left unresolved, millions of American taxpayers and small business owners are left without the ability to properly budget for the next year.

At a townhall meeting, a guy stands up and says: I am a CPA. I make a living advising people how they should adjust their estates and their expenses and their investments based on, at least in part, what kinds of tax liabilities they will be facing. I can't do my job because we don't know.

The environment of uncertainty is holding back investment and job creation in this country, and at least the people of this country should have the right to know what their taxes are going to be next year. That won't be the case.

Let me return for a minute to the continuing resolution and the very serious concerns I have about one of its provisions. According to the Appropriations Committee and press reports, section 146 of this bill would authorize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to continue buying and guaranteeing mortgages up to $730,000 in expensive housing markets through September of next year. Under current law, that amount was scheduled to drop to $625,000 at the end of this year. One would think that by now we would all be sensitive to the disastrous fiscal implications of Fannie's and Freddie's performance and find ways to rein them in rather than maintain or expand their operations. Fannie and Freddie are synonymous with mismanagement and waste and have become the face of too big to fail.

Congress had the responsibility to ensure that Fannie and Freddie were properly supervised and adequately regulated. Congress failed, and the devastation caused by that failure continues to reverberate across the Nation every day.

A recent editorial in the Dallas Morning News said:

They--Fannie and Freddie--had long ago evolved from the

modest backer of loans that met high underwriting standards

into full-scale casino players in high-risk mortgages. By

purchasing or backing the loans of mortgage companies and

banks, Fannie and Freddie made it possible for lenders to

create more money for new loans to new homeowners.

But Fannie and Freddie also conveniently benefited from

their hybrid status: They could make loans at advantageous

rates and run to Washington at the first sign of trouble. As

a major political donor, they seldom

heard the word ``no'' anywhere inside the Beltway.

That is right. They seldom heard the word ``no'' anywhere inside the beltway. Some suggest that because of their deep pockets and generous campaign contributions, Congress routinely overlooked the growing problems at Fannie and Freddie and allowed them to continue operating in the most obscene, corrupt fashion.

So where are we now? To date, the American taxpayer has spent $160 billion to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and experts estimate those costs could rise to over $1 trillion. Isn't it time we phase them out of being a government-supported enterprise? So why in the world would we provide these failing institutions with authority to continue to buy these high-dollar mortgages? It makes no sense.

My colleagues might recall that in May I offered an amendment to the financial regulatory reform bill to address the serious problems surrounding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The amendment was designed to end the taxpayer-backed conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by putting in place an orderly transition period and eventually require them to operate without government subsidies on a level playing field with their private sector competitors. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, that amendment failed.

The time has come to end Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's taxpayer-backed free ride and require them to operate on a level playing field. Fannie and Freddie continue to post loss after loss and are failing right in front of our eyes. For Congress to yet again allow them to continue business as usual is the height of irresponsibility.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is my understanding the time on our side is controlled by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Can I ask, Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

If I could have the chairman's consent to speak for 5 minutes?

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for that time.

One of the first amendments we will consider is a 5-percent across- the-board cut. There is some surface appeal to this because it is almost like taking money and not leaving any fingerprints because you do not have to pick the different agencies that are going to be reduced in spending. You just say generically cut 5 percent and call us back when it is all over. It sounds like an easy assignment, but it overlooks the obvious.

Senator Inouye, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is already preparing for next year's spending by reducing the spending level suggested by the President of the United States--if I am not mistaken, some $16 billion below President Obama's budget request.

So the Senator, as chairman of this important committee, is acting in good faith to bring down spending. It is my understanding this continuing resolution, at least for the next few months, cuts even more deeply in terms of the money that will be allowed.

So if there is some argument being made on the Senate floor that we are not sensitive to the deficit needs of America and we have not already accepted responsibility to cut spending, they are ignoring Senator Inouye's leadership on the Senate Appropriations Committee and the fact that this bipartisan compromise cuts even more deeply.

Now comes the Senator from South Dakota who says: Well, let's cut some more. Let's cut 5 percent across the board. Then you take a look at the various programs, and you say to the Senator from South Dakota: Well, let's get down to specifics. Do you think we should cut 5 percent of the spending at the National Institutes of Health where they are engaged in medical research to find cures for the diseases which are afflicting and threatening people across America? Well, I bet he would say: No, we don't want to cut there. Yet when you do an across-the- board cut and you are not specific, unfortunately, you run the risk of cutting a critical program like that.

Would you go to northern California and say to the people living there: Now is the time to cut the inspections of natural gas pipelines in the United States of America, after the terrible tragedy which occurred there just a few weeks ago, claiming innocent lives? No. Would you argue that now is the time to take away inspections for oil rigs across America? I think we are trying to move to the point where we resume drilling but with some confidence that we have inspected all these rigs and they are safe and we can move forward. Senator Thune is saying, Well, let's cut across the board. That is going to take money away from that timely inspection which we want to get completed so we can put people back to work in that region of the country and around the United States.

How about the Centers for Disease Control? Do we take money out of the Centers for Disease Control at this moment in history? I think not. They are doing important work to try to protect us against the next influenza epidemic and whatever else might challenge us. Do we want to take money away from food safety and inspection? How many of us read newspaper stories on a daily basis about innocent people who ate spinach or peppers or peanut butter and ended up with salmonella or E. coli, in the hospital, and their health compromised for months, if not years?

So do we want to reduce the inspections on food? How about the inspections on imported food? Does the Senator from South Dakota believe we should cut back on inspecting the food coming into our markets, being served on the tables of families across America? I think not.

Does he want to cut back on the COPS Program at a time when States and local cities are running out of money and laying off policemen? Do we want to cut back on the Federal funds we are sending so that there are cops on the beat to keep our neighborhoods safe?

Does he want to cut back on education? Does he believe that now is the time, when we are seeing layoffs of teachers, even though we have made some efforts here to try to reduce that? Does he want to cut more money from education when school districts across America are suffering? That is what he is proposing.

If he were standing here with the only proposals or cuts that the Congress is considering, we might say, Well, we have to face up to it, but he comes late to the party. The chairman of this committee has already taken this through the exercise of bringing down the spending for next year that starts on October 1, and this continuing resolution cuts even more deeply.

I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against this 5-percent across-the-board cut. The Senator from South Dakota has exempted a few agencies, but there are a lot that he hasn't. As a consequence, we are in a position where many of these agencies and the critical programs that are important for the health and safety of Americans are literally at risk because of this amendment.

Let's do this in a sensible, honest way. Let's not send a general letter. Let's use the appropriations process to bring down spending. The Congress cannot and should not abdicate its responsibility to review individual programs and make individual spending recommendations based on that review. The desire to hold spending in check should be based on congressional oversight of specific programs. We shouldn't take a meat ax, across-the-board, call-me-when-you-are-done approach. We should not yield our power to the President. We have our own special responsibility here on Capitol Hill.

Senator Coburn has been a strong proponent of oversight of spending. I support that oversight. He has come to this floor and advocated for the committees to look closely at spending and authorizations for scores of Federal programs. I think they should; I agree with him. This is exactly what the Appropriations Committee did last year in crafting bipartisan bills that garnered vast majorities of congressional support. The continuing resolution before us continues those levels for a short time at last year's spending levels while we work at crafting a responsible spending bill for the remainder of this fiscal year. I am committed as a member of that committee, working with Chairman Inouye, to meeting that challenge to reduce our deficit, but I am just as committed to doing it in an appropriate, responsible, and effective way. This amendment that is being offered for a 5-percent, across-the- board cut is not such an amendment.

I urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment. I urge them to support the passage of this continuing resolution so that the important business of our Federal Government and keeping American families safe and healthy can continue and not be interrupted.

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