Guarantee of a Legitimate Deal Act of 2010

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stabenow control the time from 9:30 a.m. to 10 a.m.; that I control the time from 10 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.; that Senator Stabenow control the time from 10:30 a.m. to 11 a.m.; that I control the time from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.; and that Senator Stabenow control the time from 12 p.m. to 12:30 p.m.

I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Reserving the right to object.

I think my colleague realizes that, in fact, this will add $9.2 billion to the debt, and she also realizes, in spite of her claim that we could vote, that there is nobody in town to vote because there are only 10 or 11 of us still in town. And because every Republican voted against adjourning so that we could stay and work this out, I would object.

Mr. President, let me set the record straight. Yesterday in this body we offered the same bill in a way that would not increase the debt. It was immediately tabled, with all Republicans voting not to table it and the majority voting to table it. So there is a little bit of confusion.

We worked out an agreement with Senator Stabenow and Senator Levin from Michigan where we came together with an agreement for 2 weeks where this would be paid for, so the reason this bill is not moving forward is because the House leadership rejected that compromise. In other words, we had a compromise. We developed a plan where our children will not pay for this, we will, by offsetting and not adding to the debt.

With that, I wish to recognize my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, for what time he might consume.

Will the Senator yield for a moment.

He talked about a tornado in Oklahoma. When the Oklahoma City bombing happened and we sent emergency funds to Oklahoma City, we paid for them. We decreased spending somewhere else to pay for that spending. His point falls on a flat wall because when we had an urgency such as that in 1995, we paid for it.

Mr. President, I want to set a little bit of a tone. First, I thank the Senator from Michigan. Yesterday, it was through her work and Senator Levin's work that we were able to come to an agreement on a compromise in the Senate. I think that shows when we get down to issues we can work together; when we get to the position. It was her efforts, along with several others, that allowed us to reach that compromise.

But I wanted to make a point--a couple of points. No. 1, there is nobody on our side who does not want to extend the unemployment benefits. The difference is we want to extend them without hurting her future. Whether you are a conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, or an Independent, the consequences of our actions are going to affect everybody. I used this last year, and this little girl is saying: I am already $38,375 in debt, and I only own a dollhouse.

Well, let me show you what is going to happen this year. This year alone, she is $45,000 in debt. We moved from $39,000 to $45,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. That only reflects the outstanding debt we do not owe ourselves, that we have stolen from Social Security and that we have stolen from other trust funds, that we put in an IOU.

There is another thing that is happening that Americans should be aware of. In the past year, the average interest rates on the debt obligations we are issuing have risen 1 percent. So we have $12.8 trillion worth of debt. Multiply that by 1 percent, and in this next year we are going to pay an extra $128 billion in interest just from that 1 percent.

So for every 1 percent interest rates go up, we have interest costs of $128 billion. What will happen as we continue to project trillion- dollar deficits over the next 9 years is, that is going to rise and rise and rise.

She is the one that is going to pay for that, and this will not be $45,000; it will be $75,000. Then it will be $85,000, and then pretty soon--and by the way, that only reflects the debt. That has no reflection on the unfunded commitments that we have made to veterans, social security benefits, Medicare, none.

If we add those in, we have another $37 trillion that has to be accounted for just over the next four decades. So debt is a big problem for us. I would also make a point, the Senator from Michigan mentioned the long-term debt extender that we have. It is 12 months. It is going down each time we do it. We sent that to the House. You know what. It did not increase the debt because we offset it. We paid for it.

So the House has a bill the Senate has passed that was paid for, and they stole some of the pay-fors for the health care bill. So the House has not sent it back because the House refuses to make the hard choices to pay for the things that are necessary to be done right now. That is what happened yesterday. The Senate came to an agreement. We decided we would pay for 2 weeks so nobody will have any hitch in their unemployment, no hitch in their COBRA, no hitch anywhere. When it was sent over there, it was rejected.

Now, I want to posit something to you. The reason it was rejected is we do not want to create the precedent that when we spend money we have to pay for it. Where in the world is that a normal thinking process? In other words, we want to make sure we always have the option to spend money that is not paid for. There could be nothing more economically unreasonable than that.

So this is not a battle about not wanting to help the people who need our help today, this is a battle about helping the people who need our help today without hurting the children of tomorrow, without rescuing them.

If we are talking about emergencies, the fact is, because we cannot control our appetite for spending, our interest costs have gone up another $128 billion this year. That is an emergency. The other thing is that we have over $300 billion worth of waste, of fraud, of duplication in the Federal Government every year. So if you dispute it, you can say there is only--let's say it is half that. Why would we not get rid of that and pay for this rather than charge this intermediate $9.2 billion to those little children?

I actually had the pleasure of meeting this little girl in my office after I saw this photo. She has parents. They are worried. So what is her future going to be like? Is she going to have the same opportunity I have? So what I would posit forth is that we can do both. We can meet the needs of those who are dependent upon us now because of the economic downturn, and we can protect her and all of those of her generation.

To not do so says we are going to take the easy way out. We are not going to act responsibly. We are not going to act like every other family in America acts. They look at what is there, what is the priority, what we can do, and what we cannot do. Then they make a decision about what is most important.

The process the Senator from Michigan wants us to do, even though she agreed yesterday, is to not put a priority on it that considers both the short term and the long term; that cares both for the children as well as the unemployed; that considers both the future of our country and her opportunity to take advantage of the freest Nation in the world.

This is not a Republican-Democrat thing. Republicans have been irresponsible in spending too. It is a whole new era now. Everything has changed. It does not matter what party we are in. If we do not get hold of the debt in this country, everyone is going to suffer.

I spoke on the Senate floor yesterday, and I will reiterate it: Whether you call it a filibuster or whether you call it obstruction, as a grandfather of five children, truly reflective of tons of grandparents out there and tons of grandkids out there, I am not going to agree in the future to spend money we do not have until we get rid of the things that are not a priority, the $300 billion, before we move. Someone has to start saying no to the addiction we have that every time we have a problem we will just spend money.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4915

I would like to make a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to H.R. 4915, a revenue measure from the House; provided that the only amendment in order be a substitute amendment, the text of which is the 2-week extension that we agreed on yesterday of unemployment benefits that is paid for, that will not increase the debt, with agreed-to offsets from the Finance Committee that was agreed to yesterday; proceeded further that the amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, with a motion to reconsider laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I am sorry we have an objection. The fact is, we agreed to it. The fact is, the Senator from Michigan is having to protect the House of Representatives. She knows we are not going to go forward with this unless we pay for that, until we get back.

The only way to do that is through unanimous consent. The only way we are going to accomplish that is what we agreed to yesterday and send it to the House and let them do it by unanimous consent, even though they said they will not do it.

The fact is, we agreed in the Senate. We came to an agreement, and because the House has said they will not do it, they do not want to-- they want to increase the debt to do it rather than to do it and not increase the debt. I think that speaks of where we are in the country.

We cannot do this. We have agreed on the way to do it in our body.

After we had an agreement yesterday that maybe the House did not like, it actually solved the problem and solved the problem for these little kids as well as those unemployed in Michigan and across the country. We now have the House saying: No, we cannot do it.

So I am sorry. I apologize to the Senator from Michigan for putting her in that position. I sincerely do. But I think we have to be recognizable of the fact that what looks like may be happening as both Houses recess is that it will not get done. It will not get done because we cannot get it done. It will not get done because the House refuses to take a position to not add to the debt as we solve this problem, as we meet both priorities--those people who are hurting and the priority of what is to come in the future. I think that is unfortunate for us.

I would yield the remaining time I have, which is only about 2 or 3 minutes, to the Senator from Georgia, and then I hope he will join me when we come back.

I must say to my colleague, I agree with him--what he said--but under the conventions that we use, Senators can ask others to object on their behalf, and, regrettably, I have been asked to do that and will do that on Senator Vitter's behalf.

Mr. President, I would be happy to give the Senator some additional time, and we will roll the time off of your later time, if you would like time now, I say to the Senator.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, again, I would note this is the fourth time I have done this and, regrettably, because we had an agreement yesterday that the House would not go along with, I have to object because we will be adding to the debt.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since the majority took an additional 5 minutes of our time, that our original unanimous consent be changed to give us the time from 11:05 to 12:05, and the majority from 12:05 to 12:30.

Mr. President, I yield to Senator Chambliss at this time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia. I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy on our side between the Members who are here. If there is no objection, I wish to proceed with that.

I recognize the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Alabama to start that off. I yield to the Senator from Alabama.

I thank the Senators from Alabama and Florida for their comments.

Many have heard us use the word ``pay-for'' sometimes. When we say that, what we are actually saying is, we don't want the debt increased. So we don't want to get that confused.

I also want to make one comment in relation to what Senator Reed from Rhode Island said earlier today. He said nobody on the other side of the aisle will be objecting to the supplemental coming for the military if it is not paid for. I want to state for the record that I voted against it the last two times. It is not because I don't want to support the military, but it wasn't paid for. We didn't make the hard choices. I will vote against it again, and I will try to make that a pay-for. So it is an unfair characterization to say ``nobody.'' I am pretty consistent on that. If we are going to spend new money, we should cut some of the money we are spending now that isn't as important.

Under the Constitution, the No. 1 responsibility for us is defending the country. One of the reasons we are in trouble is we have ignored the enumerated powers clause of the Constitution, which sets out a very limited role for the Federal Government and reserves the rest of the programs we are talking about to the States and to the people.

With that, Mr. President, I would like to recognize the senior--the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl. I started to say senior, but that is not so.

I comment on the Senator's point, there is not anybody in this body, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, who does not want a great future for our kids. Everybody does. The Senator from Oregon has a set of twins, beautiful kids. He wants the best for them. What we want is the same thing other Americans want.

I showed this little sign earlier. I actually got to meet this girl because I thought it was so unique that she had the wisdom or somebody in her family had the wisdom to make the contrast. She doesn't even have a home yet, and when she had this her share of the debt was $38,375. That is just external debt. That does not include what we borrowed and stole from Social Security and all the other trust funds. If we included that, she would have been about $42,000. I marked through that this morning because it is now at the end of this year, September 30 of this year, every man, woman and little girl and little boy will be responsible for $45,000. It is going to grow $6,000 per man, woman, and child this year alone. That is just talking about the external debt. That is not talking about what we are stealing from other people.

Is there a point in time when we are on a downslope, where we get to a point in time where there is no return? We know that. Senator Sessions talked about it in terms of 90 percent of GDP, and how that has a depression. I made the point earlier. We saw a 1-percent increase in interest rates last year. We owe $12.8 trillion. That is $128 billion we are going to pay more in interest in this next year than we paid in the last year, as you float through all the bonds and recognize that 1 percent increase. What was 2.4 percent 1\1/2\ years ago on 10- year Treasury bonds is 3.88 percent right now, this morning. I checked it before I came over here. That is 1.48. As our debt balloons, that interest cost is going to go up.

You heard Senator Sessions say in 2019 we will spend $850 billion on interest. We are going to spend $850 billion on interest. Of the $9.8 trillion we are going to borrow over the next 9 years, $5.6 trillion of that is going to be interest. So now we are borrowing trillions of dollars to pay the interest on trillions of dollars.

It has to stop. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize that. It is not that they do not want to fix it too. I agree with the Senator from Arizona. I think we will come to that realization across party lines. I was proud of the Senate yesterday because we actually worked together and came to a compromise that we could all agree to, and we got shot down by those who are thinking short term.

I am not doing this to score political points, as the Senator from Michigan alluded. I am not doing anything that I have not believed all the time I have been here, and my colleagues all across this body know that. The problem right now in our country is the debt. It is the debt.

If, in fact, we want a future--I have a 7-month old new one. I have five grandchildren. She is as cute as she can be. Her name is Katie Rose. I got to see her a couple weeks ago as my daughter came through. She hadn't seen me in a couple months and didn't like what she saw. I can't blame her for that. But the fact is, everybody has a Katie Rose. If this is your child, the new birth we are going to celebrate, Senator LeMieux's this weekend--everybody has one. So the contrast is, Can we do both? Can we take care of the Katie Roses of this world and take care of the unemployed or do we just say: No, it is too hard. If it is too hard, we are over. And I believe it is not over. It does not have to be. We can come together and solve both the debt problem and the needs of our country. We can do that.

I wish to give one little example. In the month of December, I had my staff search through programs that are duplicative. In 2 weeks, my staff found 640 duplicative programs--640. Let me just give one example. In our Federal Government, we have 105 programs run by nine different agencies to encourage people to study math, science, engineering and technology. One hundred five? So after that experience in December on one of the bills out here we put through, that passed, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agreed we should have GAO do that study for us to give us all of them. That is just what we found in 2 weeks--there are thousands--because that tells us where to start eliminating duplication, start asking for metrics on what you are doing. If you have a program for math, engineering, science and technology, we ought to measure whether it is effective. We might only want to have one program instead of 105.

In the Judiciary Committee in the past 2 months, we have had two different bills that have come forward to solve problems. When the bills were offered, we didn't even know we had agencies out there and a program ready to do it.

There were some positive things with the health care bill. There are tons of negatives in my experience as a doctor who has practiced 27 years. But one of the negatives is, we are going to have 88 new government programs and we are probably going to add about 50,000 or 60,000 or 70,000 people to that. I know we are going to add 16,500 to the IRS to make sure you bought your health insurance. Why would we do that?

It is time for us to make the difficult choices. The choice does not have to be do nothing or pay for it. The choice can be we can take care of both.

I will close with this discussion. This is what we did last year--43 cents of everything the Government spent we borrowed from Katie Roses. That is who is going to pay it back. We are not going to pay it back. This year it is going to be over 45 cents, maybe 46 or 47 cents this year, because when you take the real projections for what our addition to the debt this year is--in terms of recognizing all the debt such as an accountant would do, not like the Government does--we are going to have a $1.8 trillion deficit.

This means, externally and internally, we are going to borrow $1.5 trillion externally, but internally we are going to borrow $300 billion from trust funds and programs and everything else we have.

Let me give you a little example people never think about. It is called the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. It is the trust fund that has paid for all of our inland waterways. There is no money in it because we have taken it all out. We cannot do what we need to do on our navigable waters where we haul freight and barges because we have stolen all of the money. There are hundreds of those trust funds where we have emptied the coffers.

I will end with this last request. When we come back, my pledge is to work with anybody in this body who will seriously work with me on making the appropriate tradeoffs of what is important and what is not in terms of priorities.

You know that our nature as elected officials is not to offend anybody. If we continue with that process--I am talking about those who support programs we cannot afford--we are all going to be offended because every Katie Rose in the world, in our country, will have her future squelched.

And the last set of numbers you should pay attention to: If you are under 25 years of age today--that means from 25 to 1--20 years from now, you plus everybody who is born in that 20 years will be responsible for debt and unfunded liabilities of $1,113,000. Think about that. In the next 20 years, those under 25 and below and everybody born will be responsible for $1,113,000. Think about what that costs. If you apply a 6-percent interest rate to that, let's round it at $60,000--it is more than that; $66,000-something--you are going to have to pay $66,000 in carry costs either through interest on the national debt or through direct taxes before you ever pay the first income tax to run anything for the Federal Government. What does that mean in terms of opportunity for those Katie Roses and this little girl? It means they will have trouble buying a home. They will have trouble educating their kids to give them opportunity.

So I believe we are at a point where we have to start making the hard decisions. My pledge to my colleagues is that I will work with you in a way that is positive to make sure we do not put these people at risk. But I also will work with you to make sure you understand that I am going stand up every time, including the supplemental that is coming forward, and say that we must pay for it rather than charge it to our children.

With that, I yield our time to the Senator from Oregon. I would note that we have until 12:30 to finish this discussion.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, we are here today because Republicans are objecting again to critical legislation and critical problem-solving efforts that are going to help middle-class families, that are going to help move us forward as a country.

We have seen, over and over, a pattern in the last year and 2 years ago when they first began to move this kind of a strategy forward, of blocking, blocking, blocking, saying no, saying no, saying no, rather than working together to solve critical issues. People are facing some of the most daunting challenges right now, more than they ever have in their lifetime--either trying to hold on to their job, trying to find a job, trying to make sure they have medical care for their families--and we have taken a very critical step this week to be able to ease some of those challenges and fears. Americans are struggling in an economy they didn't create, and when we look over this pattern, I am compelled to speak for a moment about it.

Over the history of our country, we have never seen such obstruction, efforts to block what we are doing, as we are now seeing. In the last 2 years, there were a total of 139 filibusters and efforts to block. That was in a 2-year period. Today, barely into the new year, after a little over a year, we are at 130 different times that the other party has said no to doing things that would help middle-class families, that would help small businesses, and that would help us move this country forward. One hundred thirty times. Unheard of, never happened before.

I know for people watching, they probably wonder: What in the world is going on here, and why should we care about procedure? We just want you to solve problems. But it is the effort we saw in the past with the Senator from Kentucky, who blocked for days our effort to move forward and extend unemployment benefits for families who are out of work through no fault of their own. People want to work, Mr. President, as you know, and they work hard. It is not their fault this economy went into a tailspin, which, quite frankly, in my judgment, was caused as a result of the policies of the previous administration that for 8 years chose to focus on just a few people. So the people in Michigan are saying: What about the rest of us? What about the rest of us? We are not the Wall Street fat cats. We are not the CEOs with the big bonuses or the people who got the big tax cuts. We are just working every day. We just want the American dream for our kids. We want to know things are going to be better. We want to know we can send our kids to college so they will have a great opportunity to be the best they can be.

That is who we are fighting for, and that is why we took subsidies from banks this week and gave the money directly to students, to create opportunities for those who want to go to college. That is why we have focused on lowering costs for middle-class families and small businesses on health insurance. But we are back here today because, unfortunately, our Republican colleagues are trying to score political points on the backs of people who have lost their jobs.

Now, I know a great way to bring down the deficit, and one that hasn't been tried. The 8 years that our colleagues were in control, along with President Bush, they focused on the people at the top and said that was going to do it. If it had worked, that would have been great, but unfortunately they left everybody else behind, and we saw what happened. So I have a great idea. Let's focus on putting everybody back to work so they can contribute to our economy by paying their taxes, and that will pay down the deficit. That is what President Clinton did. That is what the Democrats did when we were last in control. That is what we are focused on doing now--putting people back to work--because that is the formula for bringing down this deficit.

The challenge we have is that we have one job for every six people who are looking right now. So we aren't in a situation yet where we have the jobs available for every person who wants to work and is able to work. That is what we are laser-focused on here in the Congress. But we need to continue to understand, as Senator Harkin has said, that too many families are caught in this economic tsunami. Whether it is a flood, a hurricane, or the fact that your community got wiped out because a plant closed, it is an economic emergency.

We have always stepped up and funded the extension of unemployment benefits as an emergency with emergency funding. We have always done that, and now we are being asked to change that. We weren't asked to change it for Wall Street and the bailout. We weren't asked to change it for the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. But we are being asked to change it on the backs of working people, and I believe that is wrong.

We are still recovering from the worst economic situation since the Great Depression, but we are recovering. When President Obama took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month--too many of them in my great State of Michigan. We are now, at the end of the year, down to losing close to zero a month. That is better--not good enough, so we must stay focused, but we are hearing that we are going to have some pretty good numbers from March, where people are actually going back to work and jobs are being created. I don't want to stop and I know the Presiding Officer doesn't want to stop until every single person who is able to work and who wants a job has the dignity of work so that we give breadwinners the ability to bring the bread home. And that is what this is about.

So we are in a situation where we are in transition, and too many families are caught. In my great State, the unemployment rate is still the highest in the country--14.1 percent. It is coming down slowly, but it is still way too high. We have almost 700,000 people who have lost their jobs and are looking for work. But that is only the official number. That doesn't include the people who are working one part-time job, two part-time jobs, three part- time jobs trying to hold it together or people who have been out of work so long they no longer qualify for any kind of help. Those numbers are much bigger.

Every day, the unemployment insurance agency in Michigan gets 13,000 to 15,000 phone calls from people asking for help--every day. Every single day, up to 15,000 phone calls come in from people in Michigan who are desperate about what they are going to do in this situation. Well, we can help them. That is what this is about. That is what we are trying to do.

If this isn't an emergency, I don't know what is. The other side says: No, it is not an emergency. But for families who have lost their jobs and who are trying to find work, trying to put food on the table, I can assure you, this is an emergency. It is an economic disaster. When 14.9 million people around the country are unemployed, to me, that is a disaster. And those are the people we are fighting for today, yesterday, tomorrow. Those are the people who, when Wall Street got bailed out, said to us: What about us? Well, part of the answer is, to make sure they can keep a roof over their head and food on the table, to allow them to receive unemployment benefits. And these aren't huge numbers. They do not begin to match the Wall Street bonuses. We are talking about $250, $300 a week. But it may be the difference between being able to keep your family going or not.

In this legislation, we have a very important provision on health care--on COBRA. When COBRA was put in place, it was a great idea. If you lost your job, you could pay to continue the health insurance your employer was providing. The problem is, it is way too expensive when you are paying both the employee and the employer side. So last year, in the Recovery Act, we put some help in place: 65 percent would be paid for by the Federal Government to help families keep their insurance going. That is also a part of this--to keep that going so families can keep their health care. That is extremely important.

We need to focus on the real challenges families are facing today and work together across the aisle to tackle those. People are so tired of the

games. They are so tired of it. They watch what is happening here, and they say: What are these people thinking? What are they doing?

I know that politically folks may gain points by objecting, blocking, filibustering 130 times, but it makes the whole process look messy-- terribly messy. It causes people to lose faith in their government. That may seem to have some short-term advantage, but I believe that is a disastrous direction for our country. People want to know we are going to work together. People are going to want to know we put priorities in the right place so that we are focusing on the majority of Americans, not an elite few.

The great thing about our country is the middle class. That is what has always differentiated us from other countries--the fact that we make things, we grow things, and we add value to it. And by the way, we make things and grow things very well in Michigan, Mr. President. We will take on any State. We will take on anybody. We know how to do things. We know how to work, we know how to make things.

But we have not had this focus over the last decade on strengthening that middle class. We are turning that around now, and I am very proud of the fact that we are seeing manufacturing begin to turn, that we are seeing efforts that we put in place through the Recovery Act putting people back to work.

Too many families are not yet feeling that economic recovery, and this is for them. This is about saying to the American people, middle- class families across the country: You know what, we get it. We are sorry you are having to go through this, and we are going to do our part. We are going to do whatever we can to make sure you have the resources to keep things together while you are going out and looking for that job or going back to job training and holding things together with bits and pieces--odd jobs, part-time jobs--until this economy turns around.

We know, ultimately, that it is about jobs. We know, ultimately, it is about the private sector creating those jobs. But there is a partnership we need to have between the Federal Government and our industry so they can successfully compete in a global economy. Rather than focusing on Democrats versus Republicans, who can score the next short-term gain in the election, we should be coming together and realize that this is an economic race between the United States and China, it is the United States versus Japan, it is the United States versus Korea. We are in a global economic race. Instead of spending time objecting, playing games, filibustering at an unheard of rate in our history--absolutely unheard of; never before have we seen this kind of obstruction--we ought to be coming together and be laser-focused on China, which is spending $288 million every day--$288 million every day--to beat us on clean energy technology. Let's make that the fight. Let's make that the fight together.

This is the wrong place and time to be obstructing and playing games. It is the wrong place to say that suddenly we want to balance the deficit on the backs of people who are out of work through no fault of their own; that we are going to change the rules now; that it is no longer an emergency and no longer emergency spending. We shouldn't be changing the rules now and doing it to people who are out of work. That is not fair.

I say to my colleagues: Don't block democracy. Just vote--today. We can vote on this up or down. We can vote on it. Don't obstruct; just vote. You want to make a motion, you want to vote, a majority vote, fine. Let's vote. But don't force a filibuster and don't object and don't threaten a filibuster. Just vote. We are happy to vote.

Unanimous-Consent Request H.R. 4851

Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 323, H.R. 4851, to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, and that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, could you indicate the time remaining on our side for this portion?

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, I would just indicate to my colleague that from our perspective this is an emergency, an economic disaster for families right now. We need to do as we have done three other times in the Congress and extend this emergency spending to help families who are out of work.

Given that, I will object.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the terrific senior Senator from Michigan.

Yes.

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his extraordinary leadership on the Armed Services Committee and his efforts to make sure we have the staff, the leadership in our Department of Defense, our military, on behalf of our troops. It is very regrettable that once again we are seeing obstructionism, blocking us from moving forward.

I do not know the exact number now, but I know we have over 70 different positions that are being held up. They have been held up, many of them, for over a year now in the Obama administration--many related to jobs, to commerce, to trade, to the Department of Defense-- and it continues to be part of what we are seeing over and over and over again in efforts to just function, have government be able to function.

Mr. President, for so long--I know there are all the politics of people believing they can gain points because of debating whether government is good or bad, whether it is the problem, whether it is the solution--I think the majority of the American people just want it to work well. They want us to work together, and they want the services that are to be provided, whether it is supporting our troops in the military, whether it is providing education for our children, whether it is police officers on the street, whether it is making sure the water our children drink is safe, or whatever it is. They want it to work well and make sure every dollar we are spending on their behalf is spent with them in mind and it is done well and we are doing it efficiently and effectively.

I do have to say, in looking at the beautiful picture of the child my friend from Oklahoma held up--talking about children and the future-- this week, we completed a process that will make sure it is illegal to block that child from getting health insurance because of a preexisting condition. I wish our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle had chosen to join with us in that very important effort to make sure every child can receive the health insurance they need, that every parent can have freedom from the fear that when they go to bed at night they are not going to have to say one more time: Dear God, please don't let the kids get sick because I don't know what I am going to do.

So we do care about those children. We have put into place a health insurance reform plan that is going to make sure every pregnant mom gets prenatal care and has maternity care, which in a majority of private-sector insurance plans you can go out and buy for yourself, they do not cover it. I am happy to have a discussion about children and about making sure they can afford to go to college, which was also in the bill

we passed this week--providing more opportunity for children. I am happy to have that discussion.

But it is amazing to me we continue to be lectured by the people who got us into this mess because of their economic policies. We are now lectured on probably a daily basis about the size of the deficit. We understand that. I was very proud to be in the House of Representatives when President Clinton and the Democrats balanced the budget for the first time in 30 years. When I came into the Senate, the big debate was what to do about the surplus. We were looking at almost a $6 trillion surplus over 10 years. Well, unfortunately, under President Bush, under a Republican Congress, that went away pretty fast: by not paying for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans--somehow that was OK--by not paying for two wars, by not paying for a prescription drug effort under Medicare. During those 8 years, somehow it did not matter there was a credit card being run up, that a huge surplus that had been accumulated through tough decisions, very tough choices, in the 1990s was somehow squandered away. So I have a hard time hearing over and over again about the deficit and being lectured as if somehow President Obama or the Democrats caused that deficit.

I am not saying we do not have a challenge right now and a huge hole, and that we are not in a situation where we need to do emergency spending because of this economic disaster that has gone on. I understand that. I understand we are currently in a situation to be forced into a position because there are no savings to help people. Now we are in a deficit position. But I find it interesting that all of a sudden, when we are in a situation where middle-class families need help--all of a sudden, when working people in this country need help-- this is an issue, when it was not an issue for 8 years during the Bush administration. That is what I find difficult.

We have put back in place the budget rules that were in place during the Clinton years, and we are going to dig ourselves out of this deficit. We passed a health insurance reform bill that over the next two decades is going to decrease the deficit by over $1.2 trillion. We know there is a hole. We understand that. But we also understand that middle-class families--who are under the crunch, who are losing their jobs, who are trying to figure out how to pay the bills--did not cause that, and the solutions being proposed now would put it right on their backs. That is what we say no to. Because it is about time, as people in my State say, we focus on the rest of us. What about the rest of us in this country--not just those in the privileged, few powerful positions, the people on Wall Street? That is what this is about. This is fundamentally a debate about that. That is what we are talking about today.

I also want to indicate what we are talking about is extending an emergency program put in place in 2008 because of the economic disaster that families are facing. It is not the regular unemployment program. It is what was put in place in 2008 because of job loss, because of the fact that we got to a point where we are losing 600,000, 700,000, 800,000 jobs a month. That is a disaster as much as a hurricane, a flood, or anything else that could happen to families and communities.

Since that time, we have extended it--as we are asking to extend it-- on four different occasions. We are asking right now for at least 2 weeks until the long-term extension gets passed by the House. For 2 weeks let us extend it, or 30 days. Let us extend it so there is not a gap in coverage, so we do not have families, who are feeling stress already, now reading in the papers that the unemployment extension is going to stop and trying to figure out what in the world they are going to do during this period of time. We are asking for 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks to be able to extend it until the House is able to pass the long- term extension.

We are right back where we were again: objection, objection, objection on being able to do that--more objections than we have ever had in the history of our country in terms of process. We find ourselves in a situation where, even though we have not adjourned--I will emphasize that: Senator Reid, the majority leader, did not adjourn. We could have votes. I realize people have left. We could have voted last night. We wanted to vote last night. Our only option to overcome this was to start a process to stop a filibuster, which takes 2 days and voting and 30 hours, and all of this, and they know that. So we could have voted last night: yes or no. We could have done that last night. But, once again, as we have had 130 different times, we are in a situation where there has been objection, objection, objection.

This is very much about priorities. My friends on the other side of the aisle talk about priorities. Yes, this is about priorities. It is about values. And it is about who you are fighting for. Fundamentally, it is about who you are fighting for. I can tell you, the people in Michigan--hard-working people, middle-class Americans, families who care deeply about this country; they love this country--are tired of decisions being made for a few at the top. They are tired of the games and the obstructionism that has gone on and on and on. They want us to get things done--real things that affect their lives. That is what they want to have us get done.

I see my distinguished friend from Rhode Island on the floor--a champion on this issue, a fighter for Rhode Island, working men and women, and someone who has been on this floor over and over again fighting to make sure people who are out of work through no fault of their own have the opportunity to receive some help, some short-term help.

I now yield to my friend from Rhode Island up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my friend, for yielding me such time as I may consume today. And I want to thank the gentleman for the considerations that he has given me personally and professionally over the last year, and I would wish him the very best in this holiday season.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this completely closed rule and to the ill-conceived underlying legislation. Week after week, my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to bulldoze their massive spending and overregulations bill to the floor of the House with no Republican input and no regular order. As a matter of fact, even today at least one Member of the Democratic Party showed up with a darn good idea, and it was slam-dunked ``no'' on a party-line basis. By the way, the Republicans voted for that good idea.

What was promised 4 years ago was that this House would be the most open, honest, and ethical Congress, by our current Speaker Pelosi when she took the gavel. But this has been the most closed, secretive, one- sided, and flawed Congress, I believe, in history, matching the previous Congress.

The American people asked for change, and I think they got far worse in the election to elect this current Congress. They received a Democrat Congress that didn't listen to the American people and a Congress that acts on its own interests and not the interests of the American people or the taxpayer. And that's why we suffer from such low numbers of support by the American people.

Mr. Speaker, soon that, however, will change. But today it is more of the same, and I am here to discuss the rule for the continuing resolution, known

as a CR, for fiscal year 2011. It also includes the food safety bill which has been attached to that CR. So it is not a clean bill. My colleagues and I have not even had 24 hours to review the text of this legislation. This legislation, once again, continues to overspend and overregulate, a common theme over the last two Congresses. And we won't even use regular order to establish the process.

The underlying legislation is a CR to keep the government running through the rest of this fiscal year. The President has not signed one appropriations bill into law for this fiscal year, and our friends, the majority Democrats, have provided no budget. So this is their last- ditch effort to provide funding to keep the government running. Over the past 3 years, nondefense, nonhomeland security, and nonveterans affairs discretionary spending has increased by a staggering 88 percent. In the meantime, the Nation's debt has risen to $13.5 trillion--and that means that there is an additional $4.5 billion in deficit spending every single day. There have been back to back yearly record deficits day after day after day. The unemployment rate has risen--it is now at 9.5 percent--for 18 consecutive months. I might add that it rose to 9.8 percent in the latest economic report.

This CR does nothing to reverse this trend and, instead, continues the unsustainable high rate of spending passed by the Democrat majority, aided by, supported, and abetted by the President of the United States, our President, Barack Obama. This includes more spending for Federal agencies that already had seen huge dollar increases with the stimulus bill in 2009.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues and I have pledged to cut nonsecurity spending back to the fiscal levels of 2008, which would save the American taxpayers nearly $100 billion for what will end up being the next year of spending. Mr. Speaker, I believe that any responsible action by this House of Representatives should have been and should be to avoid raising the debt limit by making tough decisions today to avoid placing our children and our grandchildren in a further diminished position.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people, as they look at their own personal circumstances and as they look at the irresponsibility out of Washington, unfortunately continue to see taxing, borrowing, and spending as a national problem. And that has brought us nothing but the results of higher unemployment, more debt, more bankruptcy, more homes being lost, and more debt. Americans have called for this endless spree to end and for an era of fiscal discipline. I think, once again, even though we are after the election, that message continues to fall on deaf ears again today.

This country needs leaders who are willing to make tough decisions, fiscal decisions that will empower not only economic stability but also bring back to the American people jobs, the opportunity for them to be in a competitive marketplace and to understand that America must have jobs if we are going to provide our children and grandchildren with the future that they can believe in.

Once again, it is the Congress of the United States that continues to lead the effort of us towards higher deficits, higher unemployment, and higher problems for people back home. We disagree with that.

Mr. Speaker, as if the rampant spending wasn't enough, my colleagues, once again on the other side of the aisle, had to add what I consider to be an unfair and overregulated Senate food safety bill to the underlying legislation. Republicans remain committed to legislation that ensures the safety and security of America's food. However, this legislation comes at a heavy toll on producers and does virtually nothing to hold Federal bureaucrats accountable for their role in preventing food-borne illnesses. Oh, I'm sure we are going to hear about the number of people who get sick every year. We are going to blame everything on food processors and that process when, in fact, what we need to do is put rules and regulations in place that will better people's lives, and to allow the Federal Government to effectively work with consumers. That's not what this food safety bill does.

The food safety measures in the underlying bill impose significant regulatory and cost burdens on the food processing and food producing system.

It increases costs for food producers and, ultimately, consumers and does not require the Federal Drug Administration to spend one additional penny on the inspection of food for safety purposes.

The bill expands the FDA's authority to dictate on farm production practices and performance standards. This means Congress is about to give the FDA, who is already overworked and has limited resources and even less expertise, the specific power to dictate to U.S. farmers how best to farm. Our Nation's farmers do not need more Federal Government bureaucrats who sit behind a desk in Washington telling them how to do their job.

Additionally, this legislation institutes and expands registration requirements for food processing facilities, which essentially amounts to a Federal license to be in the food business. This would make it unlawful to produce food without a registration license, allowing the FDA to suspend a company's registration, once again a big Federal empowered government in Washington, D.C., at the expense of jobs and the price that consumers have to pay.

Like any Federal agency, the FDA makes mistakes, yet this bill does nothing to ensure agriculture producers don't take massive financial losses caused by the mistake of the FDA. For example, in 2008 when the FDA mistakenly attributed an outbreak of salmonella to tomatoes, it cost the industry $100 million.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way for us to legislate out of Washington, and there is no way to ensure that the FDA will not make such mistakes again in the future and wrongly implicate agriculture processing to food-borne disease outbreaks that can once again cause severe economic losses to the farmers and ranchers of America who cannot only not afford them, but who produce the highest quality of safety products anywhere in the world to American consumers. This is not going to be addressed properly in this legislation. It is simply about empowering Federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

In an article in The Wall Street Journal from December 2, 2010, related to the food safety bill, it states that ``food-borne illnesses have fallen by nearly one-third over the last decade, largely because businesses have already every incentive to police themselves.'' Yet this legislation gives the FDA new powers over the 2.2 million farms and the 28,000 food producers in America.

In true fashion, my Democrat colleagues continue to push their own agenda, overwhelming the American consumer. They have shut out Republicans over the last 4 years, and they continue to shut out common sense and the American people. Continuing on the path of reckless government spending will only put the United States further in debt, burdening future generations.

Mr. Speaker, we disagree with taxing, spending, and overregulating. Overregulation that increases costs to consumers and food producers will add just another fiscal restraint on families, not just in the congressional district that I represent, but all across this country. Congress must do a better job. We tax too much, we spend too much, we regulate too much, and we listen too little in this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I think you can count me in that I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts is right. Much of what this President does propose and in these last two Congresses what they proposed, Republicans have objected to them, and it is for a simple reason: We don't want to support the things that don't work. We want to support the things that will help the American people not only to have a better economy and to take care of themselves, but we are not for growing the size of the Federal Government that is in our lives now, a food safety bill that will do what I believe is quite the reverse but will be expensive and will come at the cost of consumers bettering their ability to have a safe food chain.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Cheyenne, Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

(Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Lucas, the gentleman who was selected today by the new Republican majority this next Congress to be the Agriculture Committee chairman. The gentleman, Mr. Lucas, spoke very clearly not only on behalf of farmers and ranchers across this country, but really on behalf of a group of people who are in the food chain of this country, who all the way up through grocery stores and providers of content make sure that the food safety lines of this country are properly taken care of.

There are so many food workers all across this country who have established not only high standards as a result of their advocacy for not just their job, but the greatest opportunity around the world for us to make sure that consumers get the benefit of clean food, the opportunity to know more about not only the caloric intake, but to make sure that the value of our food is held for consumers at a proper price.

The gentleman, Mr. Lucas, has noted a number of times on the floor that this industry, the agricultural industry, and the supermarket industry really have taken steps to ensure that their products are not only safe and secure, but that consumers have an opportunity to understand how to utilize those products when they receive those products from a store, perhaps, or where they buy their products. And this is part of that chain that I believe that this legislation just misuses. And consumers, through their ability to use food, whether it's refrigeration, whether it's in cooking procedures, whether it's mixing these products, how they would hold these out certainly has a lot to do with the food safety and the aspects that come as a result of that.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard me say it over and over, but the American people I think expect something better and different. I must confess that in the near future that what we will do when Republicans come to the floor this next Congress starting January 5, we will take the legislation and run it through committees. We will include feedback and ideas from not just Republicans, but also the Democrats who want to be a part of this process, who get up and come to this town to represent their people, people who have elected them, people who have confidence in the way we do things.

Taxing, spending, overregulating is not the way that this Congress should run; and the American people feel that, unfortunately, so plainly. Today all the way to the end, it is yet another example about how the American people see because they hear firsthand about overregulation, excessive spending, and continuation of more of the same.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation, to vote ``no'' to stop the reckless fiscal policies that not only Speaker Pelosi but the Democratic Party have pursued over the last 4 years. Irresponsible not only in terms of the fiduciary responsibility that they had to openly discuss with the American people, the appropriations process, the budgeting process, but perhaps more importantly, I believe what is the responsibility of this body to work effectively as a purveyor of the taxpayer money in working with the administration.

All we have done is send them a signal, you go spend all the money you want, we will make it available to you, rather than an understanding of the give and take of the expectations of performance by the American people of where each of these dollars should be spent and what we should expect back in return. I think it's always bad when a blank check that's filled in is given to somebody without an understanding of that. The United States Government should not allow this. That will change.

A vote ``no'' is going to allow farmers and food producers also, because this bill is together, it's going to take away their rights, it's going to add more rules and regulations, it's going to add more government interference, it's going to get in the way of what I believe is a food safety issue.

It's time to end the idea of big government and big spending. We are here on the floor again to make sure that the American people understand this, that there is a group of people who will certainly see things differently.

But I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, we will show up with better ideas. Get ready, hope is on the way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Alabama. Senator Sessions has been an outstanding leader on many issues but specifically on this issue of fighting against this debt. He and I often talk about these concerns. He comes to the floor, and he articulates these concerns so the American people can understand how dangerous this situation is. But he does not just come and talk about the problem; he offers real solutions to cap our spending, to find mechanisms to get this Congress on the right course.

As my friend mentioned, I am new to the Senate. I was appointed and came here in September of last year. My experience is in business and my experience is in State government back home in Florida. The comparisons to how Congress manages its money--your money--versus how a family does or a business does or even a State government does, those comparisons are striking because this is the only institution I have ever been a part of where we do not have to make ends meet, where we just spend money we do not have, where we never have a discussion about, well, if we raise this budget for this particular part of the money we spend, how much are we going to have to lower this budget. That discussion does not happen in the U.S. Congress.

In 2011, we are going to take in an estimated $2.2 trillion in revenue from taxes--money that is coming from you, the American people--but we are going to spend $3.8 trillion. That is like a family in my home State, say, in Ocala, who makes $22,000 a year and they are going to spend $38,000. Oh, by the way, they have $1 million in debt. It is unsustainable.

The way the American people run their families, the way businesses have to run their budgets, the way State governments that are constitutionally required to balance their budgets have to cut spending in tough times--we do not have those mechanisms in this body, and we do not have enough people, such as Senator Sessions, Senator Chambliss, my friend from Georgia, and Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, who come to the floor and bring forth good ideas to talk about this spending problem.

This current bill to extend unemployment insurance and add money for doctors who give Medicare services--a lot of those folks in my State in Florida--and for money for COBRA, which is health care when you are unemployed, so government can put in that portion your employer would normally pay for--these are all good things. Every Member of this body, all 100 Senators, all 41 Members of the Republican side want to vote for this bill.

Last night, as my friend from Alabama said, we had a deal worked out with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to pay for this. What a novel idea: We are going to spend new money, and we are actually going to cut money from someplace else in the budget so we do not add to the deficit and the debt--shockingly good idea in Washington. But the deal fell apart because our friends in the House of Representatives, the Democratic leadership, would not agree to it.

Let me tell you, there is probably no State in the Union that needs this money more than Florida. I want to vote for it, but I cannot vote for it because it is not paid for.

My friend from Georgia just talked about the unemployment number that came out--more than 10 percent unemployment in Georgia. He has a new number coming out today. The number came out in Florida. We are at 12.2 percent unemployment announced today--12.2 percent, the worst unemployment in the history of keeping records in Florida. The second worst time was in 1973 to 1975, during that recession. There are 1,126,000 Floridians out of work. By the way, that is just the unemployed number. We know those who are underemployed--people who lost their jobs and now have to work part time and cannot get full-time employment--we know that number, if you add it with those who are unemployed, is probably 17, 18, 19 percent of the people.

When I go home to Florida and I am walking down the street, one out of every five people I see of working age and ability either does not have a job or does not have enough work. That is the issue on which we should be focused. But we cannot continue to pay for things here that we cannot afford. We cannot continue to burden our kids and the next generation with debt they will not be able to pay.

The hour of awakening and the hour we will be responsible and feel the impact for this spending is not just 5 or 10 years from now; it is now, it is today. Let me give an example.

Today in the Wall Street Journal, there is an article by Tom Lauricella. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this article in the Wall Street Journal.

Mr. President, the article talks about the fact that when we are selling our debt, which is what the Federal Government does when we do not have enough money to pay for our expenditures, when we spend more than we have, we borrow and we issue debt instruments-- bonds, Treasury notes. Now we find out in today's Wall Street Journal that the demand for our debt is falling. As my friend, Senator Sessions from Alabama, said, Warren Buffett now is a better investment than the U.S. Treasury. What an important statement that is for us to think about, that we no longer are the best investment, that an individual in this country is a more worthy investment.

Now Treasury note demand is down. What happens when less people want to buy our debt? When they turn their nose up at our Treasury offerings, the bond prices go down and the yield goes higher. The interest rate goes up. That does a couple things. One is that we have to spend more money on interest payments. That means more of our spending in the year will go to pay for our debt. The third or fourth-- depending on how you count it--biggest expenditure every year in our budget is our interest payments. There is more than $200 billion a year in interest payments alone. That is money that could be sent back to you, the taxpayer, or could be used to pave roads or hire teachers or send kids to college, and we are sending it to finance bad decisions we have already made. But now, with the interest rates, the yield rates going higher on the debt we are offering, guess what it is going to do. It is going to increase the cost of borrowing money, which is going to increase the cost of mortgages.

So here I am from Florida, and I sure want to extend unemployment insurance to folks who are suffering, but I also don't want to do any more damage to our real estate market. We have some of the worst foreclosure rates in the country. So what is going to happen when that family of four in Naples, FL, who has been struggling through this economy, has a problem keeping a job? Maybe mom lost a job and now she is underemployed and dad is unemployed, and they are trying to make their mortgage payments. They have an adjustable rate mortgage and their interest rates are going to go up. What happens if someone wants to buy a new house in our struggling real estate economy? They can't go buy that house because that house is now more expensive because the interest rates have gone up.

So the problems of our debt and our deficit are not just going to be visited on our kids, they are being visited now. Other countries around the world, their economies are booming. Their growth is coming back-- places such as Brazil are on fire. Their stock market is up incredibly because the world is finding it a better place to invest than the United States. Our debt is making us a bad investment. So not just for our kids or our grandkids, right now this economy is going to have problems recovering because of the debt we have now.

But let's talk a second about the future. Sometime between now and Monday my wife and I are going to have our fourth child. I have the cell phone in my pocket. If it rings, I have to go. That baby is going to be born in a country where he or she will be responsible for about $40,000 in debt. What is the future of our baby, along with our other three sons who are 6, 4 and 2, going to be like in this country with all of this crushing debt, with $10 trillion more in debt expected by the end of this decade?

We are going to pay $800 billion in interest payments by the end of this decade if this spending continues. That is more than we spend on the defense of the United States, more than our Defense Department budget. More and more will go to interest; less and less will go to spending. Then what will happen? Taxes are going to have to go up, and by the way, 70 million people are going to retire and they are going to go into Medicare. Those two programs right now don't have enough money in them.

So while I am high on the American people, and I am optimistic this country can do anything, I am seriously worried about this government. I am seriously worried about the fact that we spend money we don't have, and I am seriously worried about the fact that there are too few Members of this body and the body down the hall who want to make the tough decisions to start cutting our spending now to save our future.

By the way, it wouldn't be that hard to do. It wouldn't be that hard to do for us to come together, Democrats and Republicans alike. The American people should know we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who want to do this. We talk to them. They are concerned too. But we have to come together and address this, and we are going to have to make, as the President would say, grownup decisions about the future of this country. Some things are going to have to get cut, and we are going to have to spend less.

Let me give an example of the framework--for when we come back from the break--of a piece of legislation I will introduce to give us the mechanism for doing this. If we went back to the spending that we had in 2007, which is just 3 years ago, and we froze spending at that level for the next 10 years--until 2020--we would balance the budget in 2013, and we would cut the deficit of $12 trillion in half by 2020.

Now, the question I ask when I am back in Florida talking to constituents is--as my friend from Georgia said--whether at a supermarket, at a townhall meeting, or at a church--would you be able to live off the money you made in 2007? Well, the answer unanimously is, yes; it is more than I am making now. The economy didn't go into recession until December of 2007. So why can't government go back to what we spent in 2007 and cap it? Then we could do something we don't do in this Congress: We could look at the money we are spending now as opposed to trying to spend new money and find out whether we are doing it efficiently.

We could cut the wasteful programs. My colleague from Oklahoma has already been identifying hundreds of duplicative programs in government. We could go and find ways to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, we know there is $60 billion to $100 billion a year in Medicare fraud--health care for seniors. My State, unfortunately, is the leading place for health care fraud in the country.

I have a proposal I have talked to my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, about--Chairman Baucus--and other Democrats, and I think we are going to get some bipartisan support to pass that this year, and that may save us $20 billion by stopping waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare. Does anyone think there is not waste and fraud and abuse throughout the spending of government? When is the last time someone went and looked under the hood of one of these agencies and said: Could we do the same work with less? Do we need to spend as much money as we spent last year?

Businesses do this every year. They are doing it right now, just as families are doing it. They are saying: Do we really need to do what we did last year? We have less money; what do we cut? Government doesn't do that.

Our friends on the other side are more interested in new programs. We should all spend a year or two focusing on the programs we have. My friend from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, is a champion at oversight and gets under the hood of these agencies and looks at the spending. It is not just in the social services agencies, it is in all the agencies--in the Defense Department and everywhere.

We have a duty to the American people to make sure that every dollar we spend, we spend wisely. Let's spend a couple of years questioning the money we are spending now. Let's have our agency heads, our Secretaries, our Cabinet members, instead of devising new programs, go into the programs they have and see whether they are helping the American people. If they are not, let's cut them. Let's freeze hiring across the Federal Government. A lot of folks are going to retire out of the Federal Government when the baby boomers retire. It is an easy way to shrink the size of government, to let those folks retire and not replace them. Technology in the private sector gives us great opportunities to do more with less. In government, we do less with more.

So I am appreciative of my friend from Oklahoma for bringing up this point and objecting. It is not politically popular to do. None of us wants to stand in the way of unemployment compensation. I need it in Florida for my folks who are out of work. But we are impacting our way of life now, and we are going to impact our children's lives. When my baby is born this weekend, or on Monday, I am going to be extremely happy--and I know my wife is--about bringing a fourth child into the world, but it will still be in the back of my mind: Is he or she going to inherit the same America I have, with all the same opportunities I was able to enjoy? I hope so.

With that, I yield the floor to my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, it was fascinating to be here in the Senate Chamber this morning when first the Senator from Iowa made the statement, ``I'm all for paying for things.''

I am all for paying for things? But not for this. Not for that. Not for the next thing.

Watching the Senator's voting record, it seems that everything is an emergency. He certainly does not seem to want to be paying for anything, just add it to the debt.

I heard the Senator, my good friend from Michigan, a few minutes ago say it is the United States versus China. My good friend from Michigan said we are laser focused on China and that China is spending money every day to beat us.

I think the problem is the government in Washington is spending money every day--the taxpayers' money, money we do not have, and that is what is going to beat us. It is money irresponsibly being spent by this government in this city, voted on time and time again by a Washington government that doesn't live within its means, doesn't do what the States in this country do, where we do live within our means. I served in the Wyoming Senate where we did balance the budget. The Governor had a line-item veto. We had to balance our budget. It is the spending by us in the United States that is going to lead to China beating us, not money being spent in China every day.

That is why on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, above the fold, right there, Wall Street Journal, Friday, March 26, 2010, ``Debt Fears Send Rates Up.'' The fear of the debt is sending rates up.

What it means is people do not think we are responsible in the way we are living. We are not living within our means. We are not doing what a family does in this country, where a family says we have to live within our means. When the Senator from Iowa says you can't go down and get an extended line of credit if you have already tapped your credit, this country continues to do it. Washington continues to overspend and not live within its means.

The amount of spending being done, often under the guise of saying it is an emergency, has been irresponsible, unsustainable, and my concern is it will soon be irreversible.

I believe in this country. I believe in America. We are a strong nation. We are a resilient nation. We are a proud nation. And we are a nation that has faced down some of history's most vicious tyrants, we have faced down some of the most incredible obstacles, challenging obstacles, and we have risen to the occasion time and time again.

Today, here we are, faced with many challenges, none of which is too large or too difficult for the American people to overcome. But the President of the United States has determined the people cannot be trusted to overcome the obstacles we face. Instead, here in Washington, Democrats believe the government continues to be the answer. I am here to tell you that government is not the answer. The government is the problem.

Americans have been promised transparency, accountability, hope, and change. Instead, what the American people have been given is irresponsible and unsustainable spending, along with unthinkable government intervention into nearly every aspect of our lives. This country needs an economic environment where people, where individuals, where families, where businesses can recover and thrive. What the administration has done is give us more bureaucracy and more debt and it is going to get worse now that the health care bill has been signed into law. To make matters worse, this government in Washington is sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren.

Look at the proposals that are ahead of us here--costly cap-and-trade proposals which are going to raise costs and raise energy prices for American families, government-run health care, irresponsible bailouts of every industry in sight, one takeover after another, where government says we know better than the American people.

Government is wrong. I have great concern that people here in Washington are completely out of touch with what is happening in the real world. I go home to Wyoming every weekend. I am going today. That is the best way to do it, to go home and listen to people who have to balance their checkbooks, people who have to live within their means, and then visit with State legislators who know when they go to the capitals of their respective States that the States have to live within their means, balance their budget, don't overspend, tighten the belt, cut spending if we need to.

Watching this debate in the last couple of weeks with health care, having practiced medicine for 25 years, we need to focus on the overall health of people as well as the economy, because if people cannot put food on the table or a roof over their head, no matter what additional bill is passed in Washington--which spends more money--that is not going to make it easier for the families of America. Spending billions to combat global warming--global warming--billions, it seems senseless for somebody who is retired and can't afford to heat their home in the Wyoming winter.

There was a time when our leaders recognized that America's most valuable asset was the American people. I continue to believe that. There is a reason the preamble to our Constitution begins with, ``We the people,'' not ``You, the people.'' Our forefathers created a system of government through which free Americans get to decide their own fate. Today the very fabric of America is in danger of being tattered beyond repair, and every time I go home, as I travel around the State of Wyoming, people continue to tell me we are losing our country. I am not the only one who is hearing it. When Senators, when Representatives go home--and many of us do go home every weekend--we are hearing it State by State. Those Members of Congress who choose to not go home, to not go visit with the people they represent, to not hold town meetings because they are told by leadership don't go listen to the people, listen to us--those are the kinds of people who continue to vote for irresponsible spending.

I am hoping Members go home over the upcoming Eastertime, go home and listen to people in their own home communities who will say Washington needs to live by the same rules families in America live by--live within your means. American families know what it means to live within your means.

Since the beginning of this crisis, Americans have been forced to make some very difficult choices and to tighten our belts. Financially stressed Americans balance budgets for food, for gas, for electricity, for tuition, for clothing, rent, mortgage payments, and much more. When your neighbor maxes out the limit on their credit card they are keenly aware this is a clear indication of a spending problem. They cannot call the credit card company and simply say increase the credit limit. Unfortunately, we know Washington is not your average consumer. President Obama said it best. He said:

In the long run we can't continue to spend as if deficits

don't have consequences, as if waste does not matter, as

if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can

be treated like monopoly money.

Let me repeat that. This is President Obama who said last year, right before Christmas, ``We can't continue to spend as if the hard earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like monopoly money. That's what we have seen time and time again.'' He said ``Washington has become more concerned about the next election than the next generation.''

Those on this side of the aisle are most concerned about our economy, our Nation, jobs, growth, opportunity, the families of this country. This is a long-term problem and it must be addressed in the short term. We cannot afford to wait. We cannot continue to call everything emergency spending without paying for it.

The American people are demanding action. Time and again Washington's insatiable appetite for spending is met with more of the same. Only in Washington can you max out the country's credit card at $14 trillion and simply keep on spending. Unlike your average American, Washington has refused to make the tough choices needed to rein in unsustainable deficits we are now facing. Since we are not making the tough choices, the cost of handling the debt is continuing to go up. Interest rates are rising which means the amount of money that is going to go to pay that debt will continue to rise. Yet we are looking at a deficit that continues to rise, $1 trillion a year, all the way through 2020, and a Presidential budget that will double the national debt in 5 years and triple it in 10.

The current national deficit for this fiscal year is $1.4 trillion. That is three times the previous record high. As I said, according to the budget projections, the deficit is going to be close to $1 trillion a year through 2020. This budget deficit is simply appalling. All you need to do is go home, have a townhall meeting, listen to people. People around the country are incensed with this sort of reckless, wasteful Washington spending.

The worst part is people do not believe they are getting value for their money. In a recent poll, of every $1 you send to Washington in taxes, how much do you think is being wasted? The American public said 50 cents on every dollar sent to Washington in taxes is being wasted. That is an all-time record high number. People are not seeing that Washington is being responsible in how taxpayer dollars are being used and the American people simply do not believe they are getting value for their money.

I agree, the people are not getting value for their money. All you need to do is look at the Washington wasteful spending and it is no surprise that the American people are incredibly upset. Year after year, monstrous deficits are leading us to a national debt crisis. In 2009 alone, the public debt grew 31 percent. It now is almost half of the gross domestic product. By 2020 it is expected to balloon to over 70 percent of the gross domestic product.

So when I look at this and I talk to people at home and I think about this and I look at the great threats, the great threats to our Nation, to me the debt is the threat. As a result, I take a look at this major spending bill, the so-called stimulus package--which was supposed to keep unemployment down below 9 percent and said if you didn't pass it, it might go to 9 percent--they passed it, and it still went to 10 percent. Do you know only 1 in 16 Americans believes it actually created jobs.

The President is out there saying it created jobs, traveling around the country, and only 1 in 16 Americans believes it. That is how severe this problem is.

With that, I see my part of the time has expired and I wish to turn the remainder of this time over to Senator Coburn.