Strengthening Our Economy Through Employment and Development Act

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amended be set aside and I send up amendment No. 3303.

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

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be divided in the form which I now send to the desk.

I ask at this time that division I of the original amendment be made the pending amendment.

I have the floor.

Madam President, while the Parliamentarian is doing the work that is necessary at this time, I thought I would spend a few minutes talking about this amendment in the interest of saving some time.

We have a significant problem in front of us as a Nation. We have before us an underlying bill that raises the debt that nobody in this room, save the pages, will ever pay a penny toward reducing--nobody except the pages and their generation will pay a penny toward reducing.

This request for increasing the debt limit of $1.9 trillion, I remind my colleagues, is $200 billion more than the entire Federal Government spent in the year 1999, 10 years ago. So we, in one fell swoop, in 1 year, we are going to increase the debt by $200 billion more than what the entire Federal Government spent 10 years ago.

The whole purpose behind this amendment is a wake-up call to say: Wait a minute, the Congress, in the last 2 years, under its leadership, has increased spending 11.4 percent in 2009 and 11.4 percent this year, not counting a stimulus bill and not counting omnibus bills that were not paid for because they were declared an emergency.

If we add all that up, excluding the stimulus bill, we had a 28- percent increase in the size of the Federal Government in the last 2 years--just in the last 2 years. At that rate, the size of the Federal Government doubles over a 5-year period.

What these amendments are designed to do is to get us doing what every American family is doing today; that is, starting to make some of the hard choices about where we have excess, where we have inefficiency, where we have duplication, and eliminate it because we should not ask the American people to take on more debt when we know we have at least $387 billion worth of waste, fraud, and duplication every year in the Federal Government. Yet that is exactly what we are doing with the underlying bill. We are taking on more debt and not doing anything about the excessive spending or the waste, fraud, or duplication.

The whole purpose behind coming to the floor is to say: Can we not, in light of a 28-percent increase, cut 5 percent in terms of discretionary spending that we just jacked up five times that amount over the last 2 years? Can we not find 5 percent worth of waste? We have identified specifically 640 programs that are duplicative of one another in the Federal Government. We have identified waste. When we go to find out, when we ask the GAO or the Congressional Research Service to help us with this, do you know what they tell us? We cannot; it is too big. We cannot tell you where all the duplication is. That is our own research bodies saying they cannot tell us where it is too big.

This amendment puts a stop to that. It mandates that we in the future, every year, will get a report from the GAO on every program within the Federal Government that duplicates another program and what their recommendations are to streamline or change it.

The reason it is easy to borrow or easy to raise taxes is because we fail to do the hard work of eliminating the spending waste. We just had the Senator from Alabama wanting to put on some caps. That is not going to be adopted. We know it.

The reason I divided this amendment is because my colleagues will take one segment of it and say: Oh, I was for cutting 5 percent out of the Federal budget, but I just did not agree with this one segment, whether it be education or somewhere else, that we should not cut, and, therefore, I voted against the whole amendment.

This puts the American people in the driver's seat, as far as their Senators are concerned. We are going to get to see whether they agree that we ought to continue to waste money; that we ought to steal it from these pages and their generation and not do the hard work of making a choice and putting things in terms of priority like every American family is doing.

Every American family is doing that right now. They do not have an unlimited credit card. They do not have the privilege of going to the bank when they are tapped out and say: Just give me more money, like we are getting ready to do on extending the debt limit.

The other thing that is in this is leading by example. The Senators increased their budget by 5.8 percent this year. We reverse that. Most of us can easily live within the budget we had last year--easily. So we reverse the increase for the Senate back down to what it was last year.

We should not ask the rest of this government to make a sacrifice that we are not willing to demonstrate by leading on the same issue.

This bill can be the first step in a reality check of getting the Congress back aligned with where the American people are, as far as spending.

Just a year ago, in January of 2009, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. Today the national debt is $12.2994 trillion. Forty-three cents of every dollar we spent last year we borrowed, and we are going to do exactly that or worse this next year unless we wake up, unless we come to our senses.

You can have all the arguments you want, but nobody in America believes the Federal Government is not wasteful. Nobody believes it is good enough to just freeze a small portion of discretionary spending. What Americans believe is we need to cut spending. We need to cut out the waste, cut out the duplication, and cut out the fraud. We need efficiency where we can generate efficiency. We need to eliminate duplication where there is duplication.

My friend, President Obama, when he was campaigning said: I promise to spend taxpayer money wisely and to eliminate wasteful redundancy. We are going to help him with that. That is what this amendment does. In 640 programs where there is duplication, we are going to allow an incentive for each department to get rid of it. We are not mandating they have to get rid of it. We are saying: You should do the review. You should take this money, and you should eliminate the duplications. What you need from us to do that, we will give you. But we are giving you the authority to do that with these amendments.

Let me quote from President Obama:

Too often Federal departments take on functions or services

that are already being done or could be done elsewhere within

the Federal Government more effectively. The result is

unnecessary redundancy and the inability of the Federal

Government to benefit from economies of scale and integrated

streamlined operations.

He is right. So now we are going to give the Senators a chance to support his statement and his position.

Nothing has been done in the last year to accomplish that. As a matter of fact, the President sent program after program that he wanted to get rid of. He said they are not effective, they do not work, they are duplicative, and they are not efficient. What did we do?

We did not eliminate a one of them. We just kept funding them. So we cannot claim that the problems lie with the President. The problems do not lie with the President. The problems lie with the elected body of Congress in not making the hard, difficult choices of putting a priority on what is most important and taking the time to do the oversight and explain to the American people why we ought to have the programs consolidated. We may have a goal we want to accomplish and help the American people with, but we certainly ought to do it in the most efficient and effective manner we can.

The other reason to consider this amendment is to think about what is getting ready to happen to us. What is getting ready to happen to us over the next 10 years is we are going to accrue another $9 trillion in debt if we do not start this process with this amendment today. We are going to accrue another $9 trillion. Of that $9 trillion, $4.8 trillion of it is going to be interest. It is going to be interest costs on the debt. We are going to borrow money to pay the interest on the money that we borrow. It does not have to be that way.

My colleagues will come down and say: The big problem is the entitlement programs. There is no question that is two-thirds of our problem. But the easy thing to fix now and saves billions, if not trillions, of dollars on is the discretionary portion of the budget that we do have control over.

We always hear the excuse: That is not the big problem. The reason it is not the big problem is because politicians enamor themselves with people at home by spending money we do not have on things we do not need that are not truly a legitimate role of the Federal Government.

The family budget is getting smaller, and the Federal Government is getting bigger. That is just exactly the opposite of what ought to be happening in this country today. Inflation is near zero, but yet we are increasing spending, like I said, 11.7 percent last year. That does not include the supplemental emergency spending and does not have any connection at all with the stimulus bill. That is what we did with the individual budgets across the Federal Government.

When I come down and make the case for cutting back 5 percent of that, which ends up being $120 billion, nobody should be opining: My goodness, we are going to tear things up. But we are going to hear that. We are going to hear all the reasons we cannot do what I am proposing to do.

America is not going to buy that anymore. They are not buying it anymore, and they should not buy it.

The other thing this amendment will do is it will give us 30 days to come back and assess other areas where we can cut more spending. People in this body think that is hard. It is not hard. Let me give an example of where we can save $80 billion a year in one program.

At a minimum, there is $100 billion of fraud in Medicare a year. We do not have an effective strategy, like any other organization outside of government, to limit the defrauding that goes on in Medicare. We pay, and then we try to chase people we should not have paid.

Senator LeMieux from Florida and others have multiple ideas on how we could take that $100 billion and over the next 6 months save $30 billion or $40 billion of that. That is $30 billion or $40 billion each year over the next 10 years. That comes out to $\1/2\ trillion, which cuts down that $9 trillion in additional debt we are going to be encumbering upon our children. Last year, this country's debt grew $4.2 billion a day. We didn't do anything about that except spend more money, so this year it is going to accrue at $4.3 billion a day. That is how much we are going to spend that we don't have.

Isn't it time that we start facing the situation as it is rather than the way we would like it to be? The cold hard facts are that we have a short timeframe--4 to 5 years at most--to get our house back in order. Now is the time to start. It is not next year, it is not next month; it is right now--right now, when the American people may or may not be focused on the fact that we are going to authorize an additional $1.9 trillion worth of borrowing. You can't even write that many zeros down and have a comprehension of how much it is. At the same time, we don't do anything about solving the problem.

Quite frankly, Congress has a dependency issue. We are addicted. We are addicted to spending. We are addicted to the age-old adage that if I spend enough money, I can go home and tell people how great I am, not ever telling them I am spending their money and their kids' money but claiming I am looking out for them.

The only way you really look out for America is to secure America into the future, and we have not been doing that. It hasn't been done under the Republican watch, hasn't been done under the Democratic watch. What has happened is the same old same old of continuing to ignore the problem and not taking the heat for making the tough choices that will put our country back on the track on which it belongs--a track that will secure a future for our children and grandchildren, that will embrace the heritage that made this country great. What was that heritage? That heritage was sacrifice. In this country, all of us--many--are sacrificing now, and many in the future are going to have to sacrifice.

Others will come down to the floor and they will say: Well, Coburn, all you want to do is cut spending; you don't really want to solve the problem. Well, the first part of solving the problem is cutting the spending and recognizing that the walls don't fall down if you cut 5 percent out of the discretionary spending in our budget. As a matter of fact, very few people will ever notice $120 billion coming out of the Federal Government on these discretionary programs because they will just go to a different grant program that does the same thing and get it there.

Let me go into some of the facts because many of us don't understand. Here are some examples:

There are 14 programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education related to foreign exchanges and designed to increase opportunity for students to study abroad. There is nothing wrong inherently with wanting our students to study abroad, to gain that perspective and to gain that education, but why 14 different programs? Why not one? Why not 1 program and save all the administrative costs of the other 13? Why not do that? Because somebody may not have their name on a program? The fact is, nobody knew that until we discovered it in the last 4 weeks.

There are more than 44 job-training programs administered by 9 different Federal agencies across the bureaucracy, costing $30 billion a year. Forty-four Federal job-training programs? Tell me why we need 44. Maybe 4 to hit different areas in different situations but not 44 and not through 9 different Federal agencies that are all trying to do the same thing and competing to throw out money.

What about 69 early education programs administered by 9 different Federal agencies. Sixty-nine, why would we tolerate that? Why would we continue with the status quo? Now is the time to make changes.

One of my favorites is that we have 105 Federal programs supporting science, technology, engineering, and math--105 different programs where we support that--funding over $3 billion a year. I agree we ought to encourage it, we ought to stimulate it, we ought to support it because we know we have to be competitive in the future, but do we really need 105 different Federal Government programs? The answer is, absolutely not. We don't. But because we don't know what is there, we continue to do the same.

As a matter of fact, there is going to be a Judiciary markup on Thursday that has a new program in it--supposedly new--and the authors of the bill have no idea that we already have a Federal program that does the same thing. That is why the important key component of this global amendment is to make sure the GAO tells us what is out there, what we need to do, and how we need to go about it. We may need some redundancy, but we don't need 105 times redundancy, we don't need 30 times redundancy, we don't need 44 times redundancy, and we don't need 69 times redundancy. As a matter of fact, when we have all these programs, the States have to hire all these different people to understand all the different programs so they can make sure they get their fair share. We could actually save the States a ton of money if they

only had one-stop shopping--if, in fact, it is a truly legitimate government function.

The amendment also rescinds unobligated discretionary funds that have been available for more than 2 consecutive fiscal years. So it doesn't hurt the agencies if the money has been there and they haven't spent it. As a matter of fact, we are giving them so much money, they can't spend it all. We have seen unobligated balances go up because they can't get it out the door. And when we are pushing them to get it out the door, guess what happens to efficiency and accuracy and effectiveness of those programs. It goes way down.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, at year end 2009, that is, September 30, there was $657 billion sitting in unobligated funds. Some of that is military, some of that is war funds, some of that is VA. We exempt war funds and we exempt VA. We exempt DOD, but we shouldn't because there is $50 billion a year in waste in the Pentagon that can easily be demonstrated.

So we direct the GAO to identify those duplicative programs and report to Congress on the findings.

Madam President, may I make an inquiry of the Chair? Has the status of our division been decided?

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

No. To answer the Senator's question, we do not even know how many duplicative programs there are out there. These are the 640 we found looking over a 4-week period.

But when we asked GAO or the Congressional Research Service about this, what they say is the task is too big. They do not even know if they can accomplish the task, which goes to the enormity of the problem we face.

I mentioned on the Senate floor earlier, we have a markup tomorrow in the Judiciary Committee for a new program, and it is duplicative of an existing program. But those offering the amendment do not even know it. So it shows we have to stop and reassess. Part of this amendment is creating a mandate that the GAO has to advise us on that.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

No problem there.

Is the Senator aware that the foreign ops appropriation increased by 11 percent in 2009 and 33 percent last year? Yet the Senator is saying we can't trim 5 percent from that budget? Am I hearing the Senator correctly? We increased it 46 percent in 2 years, and we can't cut 5 percent?

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, but I want to convey my appreciation to the leader and his staff for allowing division in the four areas on my amendment.

Mr. President, we just heard the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who is also chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, give the typical Washington talk on why we can't cut spending. In light of the fact there has been a 45-percent increase in his area of appropriations, we now can't come back and give 5 percent of that back to the American people.

Forty-five percent growth in 2 years, and we are picking winners and losers? We are not picking winners. The only winners we are picking are the American people.

The fact is, there hasn't been a major program eliminated by the appropriations subcommittee in 5 years. What they do is, once they are there, they are there forever, and nobody is willing to make the hard choices. That is typical of all the talk we will hear about why we can't cut $120 billion from the expenditures for this year--$120 billion out of $3.4 trillion, and we can't come up with 5 percent. We can't find it.

We are giving you a way to do that. Everybody is going to get to vote, and we are going to send a message to the American people. At the rate we are growing the government, it will double in the next 5 years, and we can't find 5 percent, when they are having to make 10, 15, 20, and 25 percent cuts in their own budgets.

What we heard was the typical appropriations response: We work hard, let's save this for appropriations. The problem is it never happens because every bill, somewhere, has a small constituency--every program. We listed 640 programs that have duplication, redundancy, and inefficiency. Yet we hear an appropriations subcommittee chairman say: Oh, no, we can't.

Well, the American people don't get that. We ought to be about trimming the waste out of this government, and at a conservative estimate there is at least $387 billion in waste, fraud, or duplication this year.

So we have the tremendous opportunity to come down here and deny the truth the American people know: This government is wasteful, it is not efficient, and most of the time it is not effective. When we try to make a commonsense, small cut after a tremendous growth over the last 2 years, we hear: No, we can't. No, we can't. We hear a sob story. We can't do it.

The fact is, we don't have a future unless we start cutting spending. The President even asked his staff to give him an option on the budget of a 5-percent across-the-board cut. We will hear tomorrow night about freezing discretionary spending. It is easy to freeze discretionary spending. We have just jumped it 27 percent across the board. But the freezing doesn't start until 2011. We are not going to freeze it until 2011. Our problem is today. The problem that our children are going to face is being manifested and made significantly harder because we are fearful to make commonsense cuts.

Mr. President, $100 billion out of this $120 billion comes from $660 billion that is sitting in agencies that haven't expended it over the last 2 years--the $660-some billion. We are saying, of those that haven't been spent, that hasn't been rolled out over the last 2 years, send $100 billion back. It is easy. We are spending money so fast that the agencies can't even get it out the door. When they do get it out the door, it is ineffective and highly inefficient and loaded with fraud.

Why in the world would we reject making commonsense efforts just like everybody else in this country is having to make today? Why would we put in the perspective: Oh, we can't do these little things, from the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, when in fact our country is drowning in debt and the future for our children is in doubt? We cry crocodile tears over some little program somewhere that in the whole realm of things is either duplicated or highly ineffective. We want to keep every last one of them.

We just heard the chairman of the foreign ops subcommittee say we can't do any of this. They are way too valuable; we can't do it.

Well, what is more valuable, taking care of the next generation, embracing our heritage of sacrifice to create opportunity or satisfying a small interest group that is dependent on a government program that is both ineffective and inefficient and also has three or four other programs that do exactly the same thing?

The first component that we are going to vote on is a mandatory request of the GAO to tell us the duplication; tell us across agency lines where we are failing. What do we need to know? Nobody can tell us that today. When we asked the GAO--personally asked the GAO--they said the task is too big. Well, that ought to be our first signal that something is really wrong, when the Government Accounting Agency says the government is so big and convoluted that they can't tell us where we have duplication. They cannot give us recommendations on what to eliminate.

That ought to be our first signal to say time out, stop, cut some spending and let's see who squeals, and we will put back if we have made a mistake.

The American people understand, more than we do, what is at risk in the future. They want a secure future. They want the ability to plan for their children and their grandchildren. They do not want a fiat currency, which is what is coming if we do not rein in spending.

Most of my colleagues know that is the problem before us. The question is, will we have the courage to go after it. It would be different had we not had significant increases over the last 4 or 5 years in this country, in terms of the budget of the Federal Government. But it has doubled. We are going to have an increase in the debt limit for 1 year that is $200 billion more than the entire government spent in 1999. In 10 years we are going to borrow $200 billion more than we spent--just to operate 1 year--than we spent in the entire budget in fiscal year 1999. Of every penny we spend this next year, 44 cents of it is going to be borrowed--$4.4 billion a day.

What this amendment says is let's not make that so. It does not have to be so. Let's cut it to $3 billion or $3.3 billion of that. Let's save the future for our children.

I am reminded that hard things are hard. Habits are hard to break. The habit of Washington is to never have to make a hard choice. We heard a stellar representation by the Senator from Vermont about why things cannot change here--because everybody has a special little project, they want to protect. While they are protecting their special little project, they are forgetting about the country as a whole. That should not be the legacy we want to embrace. The legacy we ought to embrace is that we had the courage to make the hard, tough decisions at a time when it was called for. Now is that time. It is not 2011, it is not next month, it is not when the appropriations bills come, it is now.

Just think what would happen to the dollar tomorrow if the Senate cuts $120 billion of discretionary spending that is wasteful and duplicated and is not going to make a difference in nary an American life. The signal it will send to the world is we are back on track. The value of the dollar will rise, the cost of oil will go down, the standard of living of consumers will go up, and every family this year will benefit to the tune of $794, if we agree to this amendment.

I think the citizens of America are worth that. I know their children and grandchildren are worth it. The question is, will we curry up the courage? Will we meet the challenge that faces this country or will we continue the status quo because we have always done it this way? Doing it this way is exactly what put us $12.4 trillion in debt; by this time next year $14.2 trillion in debt. It is mortgaging and stealing the future of our children.

I look forward to seeing the outcome of the votes, and I know the American people do. This is the first time in a long time we have had a true vote on the floor to make a difference in what is going to happen in the finances of this country. My hope is we will not disappoint, again, the American people.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment rescinds our increase for our operations. We increased our budget 5.8 percent at a time when there was no inflation last year, zero. The year before that, we had increased our budget in excess of 10.9 percent, which means we effectively increased our own budgets to run our own operations 17 percent in the last 2 years, with less than 1 percent inflation over that period. If, in fact, we can't lead by example to cut our own budgets to help the country move out of the problem it is having, it is probably because we are not very good managers of our own budgets, which belies the problem we now face. I appreciate support on this amendment. The American people would sincerely appreciate support on this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, it is remarkable what length we will go to defend our budgets. The fact is, the assumption Senator Durbin made is that we are efficient. The fact is, we are not. Everybody in here could turn back at least 10 percent of their budget if they ran their office efficiently. We know that. Nothing in Washington is run efficiently. So to say we can't do it without putting ourselves at risk is poppycock. It is time for us to lead. Now is the time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, we are going to hear why we cannot do this, kind of along with the debate we just heard from the majority whip. But here are some examples for you. This is what the GAO found.

In 2005, 13 different Federal agencies spent $3 billion to fund 207 programs to encourage students to enter the field of math and science. Mr. President, 207 different programs, and we are going to vote against eliminating them here in just a minute.

In 2003, $30 billion was spent on 44 job-training programs administered by 9 different Federal agencies. Fourteen departments within the Federal Government, 49 independent agencies operate exchange and study abroad programs. So 14 departments, 49 independent agencies operate exchange and study abroad programs; 69 early education programs administered by 9 different agencies; 23 Federal housing programs that target or have special features for the elderly operated by 6 different agencies.

That is just a minimal number.

We are going to hear why we cannot do this. The American people are wanting to know when we are going to do what is right, what is possible, and what is best for the long term, not the short term.

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

Mr. President, what the American people are asking is, Why aren't the three nursing programs combined so you have one set of overhead to administer all three programs? That is what they are asking. This does not cut any money for the homeless. What it says is, put all the homeless programs under one set of administration where we save money and are much more effective at what we are doing because we are concentrating it within one area. We can have all sorts of reasons why we cannot do it. Let's find the courage to do it for the American people and the kids who follow.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, last year Federal agencies ended the fiscal year with $657 billion in unobligated balances. There is no question a great deal of that is associated with the war efforts and other things, but according

to OMB and CBO, approximately $100 billion of that has been sitting for 2 years or longer, never having been obligated for what we have directed it to. So we have $100 billion sitting out there that the agencies have not been able to spend. Obviously, if they haven't been able to spend it in the last 2 years, it is not a priority. If, in fact, we rescind that money to the Treasury, we will cut our deficit $100 billion, and then we can reappropriate what is necessary for this year. The rule in the Federal Government is after 2 years it is supposed to go back to the Treasury anyway, which is not being enforced for everybody except the Treasury Department. They are under that obligation.

So here is an opportunity--it doesn't affect anything because the money hasn't been obligated--to put it back in and start over and reprioritize. That is all it is about. It will actually move $100 billion back and then our appropriators can decide whether they want to put that back this year.

I appreciate your consideration on this amendment, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the dangerous consequences facing this Nation aren't as outlined by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. The dangerous consequences facing this Nation are continued spending and borrowing from the next generation and a creditworthiness that is not going to even be BBB. There is no question there is danger before us. It is not this amendment. It is the continuing efforts on the part of those who are in Washington to not recognize the fact that we are wasting money hand over fist and, in fact, we appropriate yearly on many of these projects. So it will not eliminate any as outlined by the chairman. It will give us a chance to reprioritize, which every family in America is doing today.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

The amendment is proposed by myself and Senators McCaskill and Kyl.

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

Mr. President, our fathers and forefathers made heroic sacrifices so that we one day might enjoy the blessings of liberty and prosperity. Indeed, we have had prosperity through much of our country's history. Their courage during World War II changed the world, making possible the greatest run of economic growth in history. The character and courage they displayed remains an inspiration to us. And there are important lessons to be learned from the way this ``greatest generation'' faced adversity.

We have recently been put to the test ourselves. We were--and in many ways continue to be--faced with a national crisis in the form of a historic and severe recession. So what did we do? We could have learned from President Reagan and Paul Volcker, a Democrat who was then Federal Reserve Chairman and is now working with President Obama. They took the political heat in the short run so the free market could correct itself and emerge stronger on the other side.

Instead, I think we flinched. We tried to limit the immediate pain by mortgaging our children's future. We borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to finance our standard of living today. We took money from the future so we can spend it today. We tried desperately to mitigate the downturn of a huge economy, even when we know economies are cyclical and do have booms and busts.

Every penny we spent on the stimulus package--$800 billion--and other special spending was borrowed and must be paid back. In truth though, there is no plan to pay the debt back--only to pay the soaring interest for as far in the future as we can see. So this is not an academic problem, nor is it just a question of public financing and governmental roles.

As former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said about our debt in December--and I think it is a stunning statement--

The challenge to contain this threat is more urgent than at

any time in our history. Our Nation has never before had to

confront so formidable a fiscal crisis as is now visible just

over the horizon.

The policies adopted by Congress and the President have set the Nation now on a dangerous course of spending and borrowing. The budget crisis we face is so severe, the mountain of debt so high, that it threatens to undermine the foundation, as Mr. Greenspan said, of our economic strength and our prosperity. This is reality.

For the first time in our Nation's history, our generation stands to bequeath to our children a nation that is less economically sound, less fundamentally strong, and less secure than that which we inherited. And it is not necessary. We can do better if we act today.

It would be an unthinkable tragedy and really a moral failure for us to pass on a less strong country. We have responsibilities not just to our own people today but to those who will follow us in the years to come, and we would have no one else to blame but ourselves.

The numbers tell a grim story. In fiscal year 2009, our government spent $1.4 trillion more than it took in through revenues. That is the largest deficit in our Nation's history, dwarfing those of previous years. Scaled to the budget of a typical family, the government operated like a household making $50,000 but spending $83,000. That is how much more spending we carried out than we had revenues.

Common sense tells us this is unsustainable, and almost every expert you ask would use that very word:

``unsustainable.'' Yet we expect to run deficits over the next decade that average nearly $1 trillion annually--averaging that and not going down. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in the 8th, 9th, and 10th year, the deficit continues to increase.

By 2019, we will owe our creditors, including nations such as China and Japan, more than $15 trillion--three times the total debt of America that existed last year. In 2019, the interest payments we will make on the debt we owe outside the government--the public debt to foreign countries and individuals--will be $799 billion, almost $800 billion in one year. That will be up from $202 billion in interest payments last year. $800 billion is about $200 billion more than we spend on defense, and 20 times more than we spend on roads or education. We currently spend about $40 billion a year on roads, and this interest on the debt will cost us $800 billion a year in 10 years--a basis of a tripling of our debt.

That growing interest payment will crowd out our ability to fund other important government services, and it will crowd out private borrowers who will need to borrow to create jobs.

Given that we have embarked on such a spending spree, is it any surprise that the first item on the Senate agenda this year is the necessary bill, they say, to raise the debt limit to allow us to borrow more money? We have hit the limit. The government has a limit on the amount of debt it can hold by statute, such as a maximum amount on a credit card. America's credit card has a $12.4 trillion limit on internal and external debt and, incredibly we have maxed it out again. It should be a dramatic thing to boost that debt limit, but, interestingly, it has become routine.

This will be the seventh time we have done so in 5 years, and it is troubling Americans. The public is rightly angry with Washington's cavalier attitude toward spending. They know ``buy now; pay later'' catches up with you eventually. They know nothing comes from nothing. The American people know that what Stanford University economist Michael Boskin wrote in the Wall Street Journal is true. He said:

The explosion of spending, deficits, and debt foreshadows

even higher prospective taxes on work, savings, investment

and employment. That not only will damage our economic future

but is harming jobs and growth now.

The American people know that taxes are going to go up, a fact confirmed by David Walker, former Comptroller General and GAO head. He testified recently that taxes would need to double by 2040 to keep up with our current commitments.

The American people have made it clear they reject the philosophy of ever increasing debt. They reject taking on such a burden. Why? Because they know it threatens the strength of the American economy. They know it is a cloud over our efforts to rebound economically, and they want us to stop. They want us to stop.

To my colleagues, I ask: How much clearer does that message have to be? I do not think anyone doubts it. The good news is, many Senators are worried on both sides of the aisle. They are concerned about what we are doing, and they know we need to do better, and they are listening to their constituents. They will have an opportunity this week to do that by supporting this bipartisan legislation I have offered.

I see my colleague Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri in the Chamber, who is a cosponsor of this legislation that will limit the growth of spending. So it is a simple amendment. There are no strings attached. It as a rare opportunity to impose budget discipline on a Congress that is notorious for not having any.

That is what makes people angry. Politicians talk a good game but nothing seems to change. But when it comes down to it, the politicians always seem to find a way to spend more, and the taxpayers end up holding the bill. So this amendment would help change that. It would impose, first, binding limits on the 40 percent of Federal spending we control each year, discretionary spending. The amendment would put into law the spending levels approved in the fiscal year 2010 congressional budget, which a majority of the Senate supported. It is basically the Democratic Congress's budget. It had certain limits over 5 years.

What we are saying is if you exceed those limits, then you would be violating this amendment, which seeks to control and avoid that. Those spending levels include only our budget increases that are averaging about 2 percent a year annually over 5 years. Contrast that with the 12-percent increases we saw last year in nondefense discretionary appropriations, and the 10 percent the year before.

Factoring in the stimulus, government spending on nondefense accounts actually soared by 57 percent, while State and local governments were tightening their belts, some cutting expenses.

Each year we increase spending it gets built into the baseline of our budget for the next year, and when we have an increase in the next year, it is an increase on a higher baseline, and it goes up exponentially.

For example, last year, on one bill, the defense bill, there was tacked on an $18 billion expenditure for various projects that were not paid for within the budget. It was added, paid for with debt--money we had to borrow. If we do that each year, if we add another $18 billion through that kind of budget-busting activity, it would cost the taxpayers an extra $1 trillion over a decade. It is hard to believe, but that is true. Mr. President, $18 billion one year goes into the baseline; the next year you add another $18 billion, and it is not $18 billion, it is $36 billion more than you would have spent had the first one not been spent.

I am convinced we can do better. This amendment is an important step.

Second, the amendment would require 67 votes--two-thirds of the Senate--to waive the binding caps. In other words, if we set these caps, we can waive them if there is an emergency. But it takes two- thirds to do so. Two-thirds of the Senate is a strong threshold that will keep these caps in place except in times of true emergency.

Finally, this amendment complements efforts to rein in mandatory spending programs that are expected to be insolvent in coming years. Social Security runs a surplus now. Medicare did so until the last few years. Those surpluses are being spent in our discretionary accounts. So these programs have little to do with our record deficits. It is discretionary spending, up until recently, that has driven the entirety of our debt.

Deficits for the most part come from discretionary spending, and this statutory caps idea I have proposed is tested and proven. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 included similar provisions that kept the growth of Federal spending low for 12 years. Its provisions were extended in 1997 because people found they were working. Congress felt they were working.

All in all, these budget rules helped to achieve four balanced budgets for 4 consecutive years, from 1998 to 2001. The key component of that, I truly believe, was these statutory caps on spending that were passed during that period.

Many currently serving Senators were in this Chamber in the 1990s and recognized the necessity. In 1997, 28 currently serving Democrats, for example, voted for these provisions, including many of the Democratic leaders in the Senate today. I submit that those budget rules are even more needed today.

As Mr. Greenspan said, we have never faced such a fiscal crisis looming just over the horizon.

I am pleased a number of organizations known for their knowledge and concern about deficits have recognized the merit of this proposal, including the National Taxpayers Union, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Heritage Foundation, and the Concord Coalition.

Budget experts Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served under a Republican administration; Alice Rivlin, who served under the Clinton administration at CBO; and Alan Viard also back the plan. President Obama, we learned today is now talking about a 3-year freeze on some discretionary spending. This legislation would only help him achieve that goal because he can make a speech and he can propose it to Congress, but it doesn't necessarily become law. If he supports this and works to support the statement that we understand he will make in the State of the

Union Address, this legislation would be a firewall to make sure his promise isn't broken.

I say this to my colleagues: We have a budget crisis. It is a calamity so profound that it threatens our economic security. Americans across the country--in red States and blue States--get it. They are deeply concerned about the direction in which we are headed. They know the crushing debt we are incurring will weaken our country, and it will restrict the opportunities our children will have. They are making their voices heard.

A vote against this amendment would be a suggestion that a Senator is not serious about maintaining our budget caps but is looking for ways to bust the budget, get around the budget, and spend more.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation as a strong act of fiscal responsibility that will have a good impact. In fact, I am confident it would send a message to the financial community that we are beginning to get our house in order.

While I would like to go further and be more frugal in some of our behavior around here--and I do believe we are going to have to go further than this--this amendment will ensure that the limits on spending made last year in the budget passed by this Congress will not be exceeded. It will be a firewall that will save us from our excesses. It will begin to restore financial responsibility to our Nation, a commodity of which we are in desperately short supply.

I see Senator McCaskill. She has cast a number of tough votes to question reckless spending since I have observed her in the Senate. I appreciate her leadership and courage in speaking out on this issue. If we do this, it will not solve all our problems, but I think it will make a positive difference for us. It will allow increases as the budget allows for some increases before the firewall kicks in. But it also would make it very difficult to break the budget in any significant way, unless we face a true emergency.

I yield the floor and I thank my colleague for her leadership on this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Judd Gregg, former chairman of the Budget Committee and ranking member, be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

I thank my colleague for her fine remarks.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to share some thoughts on an amendment that Senator McCaskill and I offered earlier today. I note that a number of people are anxious to vote and finish up. If and when that time comes, I will be pleased to yield the floor. The amendment we offered, which would place statutory caps on spending--and that cap level that we picked was in our budget. It is what the Senate passed in the budget last year. It represents an increase each year, which is 1 to 2 percent annually. This is a budget number basically passed by our Democratic colleagues.

So what we are saying is, let's adhere to that. If we adhere to that level of spending, then we can begin to make progress.

A similar type of statutory cap was placed in 1990, renewed in 1997, helped lead us to the only 4 years of budget surpluses in recent memory, from 1998 through 2001. After that, the statutory caps were allowed to expire. We find this was something that actually worked to help us contain excessive spending. This amendment would say that number that is in the budget for the next 5 years would be firm. We would put it in statutory language, but, of course, it can be exceeded by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and the statute itself can be reversed by 60 votes of the Senate. It is not something that constitutionally would be firm over managing our system. It is consistent with previous actions of the Congress. It worked, and I believe it will work again.

It has been contended today, I understand, that these caps would impose limits on emergency spending that could potentially cripple our ability to respond to emergencies, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and terrorist attacks.

Well, I just want to say that hurricanes and earthquakes and things of that nature have had huge bipartisan votes for emergency spending. For example, after Katrina, there were two supplemental emergency bills passed. The first was passed by unanimous consent. Nobody objected to it. It was unanimous. The second was passed on a rollcall vote, 97 to 0. There is no doubt in my mind that if we have a serious emergency, we will have a lot of support for responding to that emergency.

Also, one week after September 11, the Senate unanimously passed supplemental appropriations in response to that terrorist attack. So the allegation that somehow this would cripple the ability of Congress to respond to emergencies is inaccurate.

Second, it was contended earlier today that the amendment contains unrealistic spending caps that would restrict funding needed to support our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is not accurate. The amendment includes specific provisions that prevent the caps from restricting funding for our troops in a time of war. It would not block us from doing that. We are in a time of war. It just would not apply in a time of war.

We hear it said that everybody is concerned with the growth of the deficit and the need to control debt in the United States, but this amendment--the McCaskill-Sessions amendment--is not the appropriate way to attack this issue.

Let me respond to that. For fiscal year 2010, the government spent $2.9 trillion, of which about $1.2 trillion was for discretionary spending. The remaining $1.7 trillion was mandatory spending. That is what we call entitlements. That is when you get 65 and you are entitled to Medicare, and the government has to pay it whether it has any money or not. You are entitled to Social Security payments, and the government has to come up with the

money. We don't vote on it again. We already voted on Social Security to set up how much money you are entitled to get. We have to have that money. That is why it is called an entitlement.

Now entitlements--Medicare and Social Security--exceed the discretionary account, which includes defense. So of the $1.2 trillion that is in the discretionary account that we actually vote on each year, approximately $526 billion, or a little less than half, is for nondefense purposes.

This amendment attempts to reduce the deficit by constraining just 18 percent of total government spending. It can make a much larger difference than many people realize. Five-year discretionary spending caps were passed--what we are proposing today--in 1990 and 1997 with strong bipartisan support. In 1997, 44 currently serving Senators supported the caps, and 26 of them were Democrats. It made a difference. We balanced the budget in 1998 through 2001--4 years. The current majority leader and chairman of the Appropriations Committee both voted, in 1990 and in 1997, for the 5-year caps, which restricted annual discretionary spending to approximately 1 to 2 percent increases. That is basically what our legislation would do. It would contain this discretionary spending to 1 to 2 percent.

We know we are out of control. We know that last year discretionary spending increased by 10 percent, and this year it will increase by 12 percent. That is unsustainable. At 7 percent growth, your money will double in 10 years. At 12 percent growth, the amount of money we would be spending in our discretionary account would double in 6 years-- double. We are on an unsustainable growth here. Some say: Where do you come up with this money, Sessions? This limit of 1 to 2 percent is too tough.

It is not too tough. It is the budget we voted on. Actually, I didn't vote for it, our Democratic colleagues voted for it. It was their budget, and it passed with almost unanimous Democratic support. It calls for a 1- to 2-percent increase in spending over the next 5 years. That is all Senator McCaskill and I are suggesting we should do. We would make that harder to bust, harder to break it. We put in a firmer cap. If we stay on that level, and if we have an emergency, we will have to meet it. But if we stay at that level, we could end up surprising ourselves how much good we can do in the years to come.

From fiscal year 2006 to 2009, the Federal debt was increased by approximately $4.4 trillion. That is a lot. That is almost the total debt of America. We had about $4 trillion in debt in 2006, and we added, in those 3 years, $4.4 trillion. During that time, the total increase in nondefense discretionary spending was approximately $93 billion. This means the increase in nondefense discretionary spending has accounted for 2 percent of the increase in the national debt, our critics say. So it doesn't make much difference, they would say. They are correct about the surging debt, but not that this would make no difference. If it made little difference, then why are they worrying about passing it?

Restraining discretionary spending, like we did in the nineties, is the bear minimum Congress can do to be fiscally responsible, in my view. For fiscal year 2010, nondefense, nonveteran discretionary spending increased by 12 percent and in 2009 by 10 percent. Those are huge increases, not including the stimulus package. If we included the stimulus package, nondefense discretionary spending has increased 57 percent since 2008, in 2 years.

That is a stunning number. We actually increased discretionary spending by 57 percent in 2 years. The Sessions-McCaskill amendment is similar to the proposal offered by President Obama or what we are hearing he is going to offer--to freeze nondefense discretionary spending for 3 years. This would place a cap on excess. If we break through the President's suggestion and don't freeze and go above that, we hit this cap, and it would take a two-thirds vote to go above that.

Apparently, President Obama's suggestion is less spending than this bill would cap. But that is fine, we can always do less. The danger, from my experience, is that we get carried away and do more.

Some have said the arbitrary spending caps would impede the delivery of resources needed to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks and violent crime. Such subjective across-the-board restrictions would hinder our ability to protect our homeland and secure our borders.

Well, it does allow for an increase, first and foremost. Second, our congressional process and appropriations process and authorization process should have helped us set priorities within that. It would be unthinkable if this Congress were to somehow take all that money that we need from areas to keep us safe from attack. Surely, we can make judgment decisions about that.

Another allegation is that more and more of our service men and women are returning from the battlefield, and this would restrict our ability to provide them the medical care and support they need.

This measure provides all the funding in the 2010 budget resolution. It would allow that. If additional resources are needed to care for our returning service men and women, and that has bipartisan support, and certainly if we need to be able to take care of injured and wounded, we could get 67 votes. We can do like most people do when they have a necessary expense. They trim spending somewhere else and fund the more necessary item.

Some have said it would impose a roughly $10 billion annual cap on emergency spending. Emergency spending is, by its very nature, impossible to predict. The critics say, to deliberately impede the government's ability to respond to a natural disaster or major terrorist attack is deeply irresponsible. But that is not what we do. In the legislation we proposed as an amendment, Senator McCaskill and I set up a $10 billion a year emergency fund--every year. That would be incorporated in the budget resolution, it would be contained in our amendment, and it would be restricted only by the normal 60-vote requirement on a budget point of order for emergency spending. That money would not be subject to a higher point of order, and it would not change up to the first $10 billion--which is a lot of money.

Alabama's budget, including education, is about $7 billion. So we are setting aside $10 billion for emergency funds every year, and if we went above that, we would have to have a supermajority for the kind of emergency that would justify that.

I do not think that criticism is valid. Also, some have said that recent history clearly demonstrates the folly of attempting to fix a set price for future emergencies.

More than 4 years later, the Gulf Coast is still recovering from Hurricane Katrina. Over $100 billion in Federal resources has been needed to respond to this disaster alone.

Our amendment would have no effect on Hurricane Katrina. The fact is, as I have said before, we have had virtually unanimous votes supporting funding for Katrina. I do not think that is a valid criticism. If we have an emergency, I am confident this Congress will meet it.

The recent Christmas Day airline bombing--I see my friend, Senator Leahy. Is he seeking the floor to speak? If so, I will try to wrap up.

I will wrap up. I do not want to delay the vote. It will be perfectly appropriate for him to make his remarks at this time.

But first, I will point out this chart. Why do we need to contain the reckless growth in spending? This chart shows how much interest we pay on the debt. When we passed a stimulus package of almost $800 billion, we did not have that money. Where did we get it? We borrowed it, and we have to pay interest on it.

When we have an emergency, such as Hurricane Katrina--by definition, an emergency is an expenditure for which we do not have the money and it is above our budget. Our budget puts us in deficit. Emergency spending is always deficit funded, funded with borrowed money.

In 2009, the interest we paid on our debt was $200 billion. That is the public debt. We have more debt than that. We have internal debt. Under the 10-year proposal President Obama gave us early last year, the Congressional

Budget Office concludes that our deficits will surge and that in 10 years, the interest for 1 year would be $799 billion. That is why everybody says we are on an unsustainable path. How do we get off it? Basically, we have to contain our spending. We cannot have $800 billion stimulus packages every year or two. We cannot have spending increases of 10 percent and 12 percent in basic discretionary accounts.

If we start taking firm action now, this will not happen. The debt tends to compound. Our deficits tend to compound. They go into the baseline, and then we have an increase over that the next year and the next year, and it compounds a lot more than some of our Members realize. That is why we are getting into the area that threatens the very financial viability of this Nation, as Mr. Greenspan said in December with a statement so strong about the danger we face that it would curl your hair.

That is why Senator McCaskill and I think we need to take some action. This is a proven way to do so with statutory caps. I encourage my colleagues to see it for what it is: a bipartisan attempt to be sure we do not rise above the budgetary caps that are in our budget. This amendment would make it hard to go above those levels in our spending.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to an amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. Once again, we find ourselves debating an amendment that at first blush sounds like a good thing. But when Members take the time to actually read the amendment and understand the programs it impacts, they will discover this amendment causes harm to our national and international security and to our economy.

Let me begin by discussing the last section of the amendment, section 16. Section 16 of the Coburn amendment is based on assumptions that reflect a lack of understanding about both what constitutes discretionary unobligated balances as well as about Federal funding and oversight for certain critical procurement programs.

The Senator from Oklahoma claims that $100 billion would be rescinded from an estimated $657 billion in unobligated balances. First, this amendment assumes a rescission amount based on erroneous assumptions. Specifically, the majority of the $657 billion in unobligated balances would not be eligible for rescission under criteria outlined in the amendment because they are either mandatory funds or they are not older than 2 years.

Second, because of the small amount of unobligated funding eligible for rescission, this amendment indiscriminately rescinds prior year unobligated funding from certain critical programs, jeopardizing our national defense, our homeland security, our economy, and the well- being of our citizens.

For example, we require the Department of Defense to budget up front for all the costs required to procure military equipment, such as ships or aircraft. But I think all of us are aware it takes several years to complete construction.

For shipbuilding specifically, funds provided to the Department of Defense are available for obligation for 5 years. Rescinding unobligated funds would now require the Navy to cancel contracts for ships under construction and lay off thousands of workers across the Nation's shipyards.

In terms of our veterans who have returned from war or have fought bravely in past wars, section 16 also severely impacts the construction of new hospitals by the Veterans' Administration.

Like for defense procurement, the VA requests full funding for the construction project in the first year. As a result, the Veterans' Administration has 43 active major construction projects at various stages of completion, totaling over $1.6 billion in unobligated balances. Over 49,000 construction jobs would be terminated with the loss of this funding, further delaying critical services to our brave men and women who have served us.

Rescinding unobligated balances in the Department of Homeland Security would stop the construction of the Coast Guard National Security Cutter and would rescind funding for the purchase of explosive detection systems.

Rescinding unobligated balances in NOAA would create a minimum 6- month gap in coverage for the geostationary weather satellite system, which focuses directly over the United States, and constantly and accurately monitors storm conditions. Over 200 employees would lose their jobs.

The reasoning for the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is a catch-22 for those of us on the Appropriations Committee with responsibility for overseeing our taxpayers' dollars. We are criticized for having funding that is unobligated for more than 1 year. Well, a ship is not built in a year, a hospital is not built and equipped in a year, and the next generation satellite is not built in 1 year.

The Coburn amendment proposes to rescind an additional $20 billion from programs he perceives to be redundant. We can go around and around about what is redundant and what is not because one's perception of what is or is not a duplicative program is based on subjectivity. It is that simple, and this amendment reflects what the Senator from Oklahoma alone believes is redundant. But what is clear is that this amendment proposes to cut $20 billion in funding that the Congress voted on and agreed to provide just months ago.

The impact of these cuts has significant consequences for many critical services. For example, the Senator's amendment proposes that the intent is to consolidate duplicative programs serving the homeless. However, in reality, this language simply calls on the Department of Housing and Urban Development to implement a 5-percent reduction across the Department's programs. The bulk of the funding increase recently provided by Congress to HUD covers the increasing cost of providing affordable housing to our Nation's low-income citizens. According to HUD's Annual Homeless Assessment Report, on any given night there are over 650,000 people who are homeless. However, HUD's resources fund 183,000 beds. During this difficult economic time, it is not the time to cut housing for the Nation's poorest individuals.

This amendment also takes aim at nursing education programs, claiming they are duplicative, when in fact they are not. While there are several programs that promote nursing education, each of these programs addresses different needs in our Nation's effort to address a profound nursing shortage. We have a loan repayment program to get nurses to rural areas, a program to incentivize nurses to teach, and a program to expand nurse training in geriatric care.

The amendment instructs the Secretary of the Interior to consolidate programs for dealing with the impacts of climate change. The truth is, each of the three agencies named by the Senator deal with a different aspect of climate change, and each brings a special expertise to the problem. They are not duplicative; they are complementary based on specific expertise.

For the Department of Energy, the Building Technologies Program is not a grant program to weatherize existing residential and commercial buildings in the same fashion as the weatherization program does for residential homes. There is a difference between a residence and a building. It is a research and development program aimed at new technologies. There is simply not overlap or duplication in these programs.

The amendment proposes to rescind funding for the 2010 census. Any reduction in funding for the constitutionally mandated 2010 census at this critical time would jeopardize the completion of a timely and accurate count, which is necessary, sir.

The amendment proposes to cut $2.2 billion from critical Department of Homeland Security programs.

The attempted destruction last month of Northwest flight 253 near Detroit is our most recent reminder that terrorists continue to threaten our homeland and the security of all Americans. This amendment would reduce funding for the purchase of explosive detection equipment at the very time the Department of Homeland Security Secretary has asked us to address the need for further increases in airport security.

In closing, the author of this amendment arbitrarily rescinds funding with no true justification. The rescission of $100 billion from the $657 billion in unobligated balances, as we know, would wreak havoc on ongoing procurement. The rescission of $20 billion is based on the claim of redundancy in programs where no redundancy exists.

This is a bad amendment with bad consequences. It is time for Members to act responsibly. We have a well-established process for funding the Federal Government. It involves a Budget Committee that sets our allocations and involves the consideration and approval by the Senate of every appropriations bill. It is not passed in the dark of night.

I can assure my colleagues in this Chamber that the Appropriations Committee takes its responsibilities seriously, and every agency budget is reviewed and oversight is provided throughout the year. Each year, the Appropriations Committee recommends rescissions of funds that are not needed. But those rescissions are based on detailed oversight and understanding of the programs, not indiscriminate action.

This amendment is not based on careful review and would harm many

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

Amendment No. 3308

I will also speak on another amendment. I will speak in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions.

We are all concerned with the growth of the deficit and the need to control the debt of the United States. I support that goal, as I imagine all of us in this Chamber support the goal. None of us disputes the ultimate threat to the standard of living of our citizens posed by long-term deficit spending.

However, the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama is not the appropriate way to attack the issue, for several reasons. As I understand the amendment, it would have the effect of freezing any increases in nondefense discretionary spending for the next 5 years.

In addition, the amendment would impose caps on emergency spending that could potentially cripple our ability to respond to emergencies, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks.

The amendment also contains unrealistic spending caps that would restrict funding needed to support our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let's start with the facts. For fiscal year 2010, the government spent $2.9 trillion, of which about $1.2 trillion was discretionary. The remaining $1.7 trillion we declare as being mandatory. Of the $1.2 trillion that was discretionary, approximately $526 billion, or less than half, was for nondefense purposes. Therefore, this amendment attempts to reduce the deficit of the United States by constraining 18 percent of total government spending. If the goal is to reduce government spending, I am unclear on how constraining growth on just 18 percent of that spending will be at all effective.

In addition, if we examine the actual numbers involved here, it becomes even clearer that this amendment will simply not achieve its stated goal. From fiscal years 2006 to 2009, the Federal debt was increased by approximately $4.4 trillion. During that time, the total increase in nondefense discretionary spending was approximately $93 billion, as compared to $4.4 trillion.

Doing the math, for the past 4 years, the increase in nondefense discretionary spending has accounted for 2 percent of the increase in the national debt--just 2 percent.

What do we get for this 2-percent savings? Aside from the obvious challenge of funding vital government programs without even an adjustment for inflation, we also put our country and our citizens at risk.

Arbitrary spending caps would impede the delivery of resources needed to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks and violent crime. Such subjective across-the-board restrictions would hinder our ability to protect our homeland and secure our borders. As more and more of our service men and women are returning from the battlefield, this measure would restrict our ability to provide our military personnel and veterans with the medical care and support they need.

These are only a few examples of the damage that would be done to vital programs, all for a projected savings of 2 percent.

Even more troubling, this amendment would impose a roughly $10 billion annual cap on emergency spending. Emergency spending is, by its very nature and definition, impossible to predict. To deliberately impede the government's ability to respond to natural disaster or major terrorist attack I say is deeply irresponsible.

Recent history clearly demonstrates the folly of attempting to affix a set price to future emergencies. More than 4 years later, the gulf coast is still recovering from destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. Over $100 billion in Federal resources has been needed to respond to this one disaster alone.

We have all seen the horrible suffering that has resulted from the devastating earthquake in Haiti. What if a city in California were to experience a similar disaster? This reckless amendment could delay or block the timely delivery of resources needed for an appropriate Federal response.

The recent Christmas Eve airline bombing attempt serves as a stark reminder of the grave threats that continue to face our Nation. In the event of a major terrorist attack on our soil, the Federal Government must not be constrained by an emergency spending cap.

Remarkably, this amendment would also restrict funding needed to support our men and women in uniform fighting overseas. Based on earlier budget projections that no longer reflect fiscal reality, this amendment provides $130 billion for the current fiscal year and $50 billion per year thereafter for ``overseas deployments and other contingencies.'' The President's recent decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan will almost certainly require additional resources from Congress.

I find it very difficult to imagine that the Senator from Alabama genuinely believes that $50 billion would suffice to cover the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If this amendment were adopted, with defense and overseas caps, in statute, are we expecting Congress to cut defense to pay for these operations? That is what this amendment authorizes.

Spending restraints that would deny funding needed to support our troops are not fiscally prudent; they are deeply irresponsible.

Finally, I remind my colleagues that we already have a 60-vote threshold to overcome budget points of order to appropriations bills. As we all know, 60 votes is not a minor hurdle to overcome. By increasing that threshold to 67 votes, we turn over decisionmaking to a small portion of the Senate. We should not let those who represent only one third of this body exercise control over bona fide emergency spending.

This country must face the challenge of reducing our deficit. We all agree to that. But we must do so in a meaningful and effective way. I do not believe this amendment does either.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the Sessions amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma proposes to cut $20 billion from programs which he describes as being redundant. Well, take, for example, nursing. There are three different programs. They are not redundant. One is for education; another is to train women and men to go to rural areas, rural America, to serve; and the third is for research. Yes, three different agencies handle that. It is for three different purposes.

Then you have HUD. One of the sad facts of life is that tonight 658,000 American men, women, and children are going to go to bed homeless, some of them with empty stomachs, some without blankets, and we are going to cut 5 percent from housing for the homeless? This amendment does that.

Then you have cuts for foreign operations. Senator Leahy spent some time this afternoon explaining why this is foolish. We had an accounting change because now we cover State Department activities in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think it is ill-advised to do what the Senator proposes because these are not redundant. These are not wasteful. I think we could be spending more for the homeless, but yet we are cutting this by this amendment. I hope we reject this amendment.

Mr. President, this is a very serious amendment. Potentially it could be damaging. It says, very simply, if the funds are not obligated for 2 years, then it is rescinded. It sounds reasonable, but I think it is no secret it takes longer than 2 years to build a battleship. It takes more than 2 years to build an aircraft carrier. It takes more than 2 years to build a hospital. Right now, there are 43 VA hospitals being built. Are we going to cut them out? What about the shipbuilding industry? Are we going to rescind that?

This amendment has potentially very dangerous consequences. I hope my colleagues will vote against it.

I yield the floor.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3303

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Coburn amendment to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending. Before my colleague from Oklahoma leaves the floor, I know he has to go, but I have to pose a question for the Senator from Oklahoma. We have a listing in the Senator's amendment of the many duplicative programs.

Have we had a study that would indicate how many government employees are engaged in administering these duplicative programs?

I do believe that at least we ought to, over time, make an attempt to ascertain the numbers of employees who are in these duplicative government programs. It is really startling--if the American people knew of the fact that there are so many duplicative efforts and different agencies of the government trying to accomplish the same mission.

Before I go much further, I would like to mention, I have the information that tomorrow night the President will propose a spending freeze for discretionary spending with the exception of defense, veterans affairs, and homeland security. I applaud that move on the part of the President.

I think, from the conclusions I have reached so far, it would save some $15 billion next year and perhaps $200 billion over time. We are trying to ascertain exactly what that is.

But I do not see how the President, at the same time that he is recommending a spending freeze that would save some $12 or $15 or $20 billion next year, at the same time to be proposing a stimulus package, another one, that could be $80 or $100 billion. That is not fiscal discipline.

The House, the other body, passed, before we went out of session, a jobs bill that was somewhere around $100 billion, as I understand it. I understand the other side of the aisle is working on a package of about $80 billion. Well, look, let's stop the spending now. Let's stop the spending now.

So if we want to be sincere about stopping the spending that is unnecessary and unneeded, then we certainly should discard the idea that we need another massive stimulus, particularly in light of the fact that by any estimation, including the prediction of the President's economic advisers that if we passed the last stimulus package, unemployment would be at 8 percent.

So this proposal about a spending freeze would have a lot more credibility with me if we said we are going to stop additional spending this year that would also add to the burgeoning national debt.

The Coburn amendment is an important one. The Coburn amendment is best appreciated by the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves. In a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle, they noted:

Our spending excesses, as most every American knows, are

increasingly financed by foreign sources led by China. In

all, about $4.5 trillion in U.S. debt is held by foreigners

and nearly $800 billion of that is held by the Beijing

government.

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

On December 16, the Wall Street Journal wrote:

Our view is there is good and bad public borrowing. In the

1980s, Federal deficits financed a military build-up that

ended the Cold War leading to an actual peace dividend in the

1990s of 3 percent of GDP, as well as tax cuts that ended the

stagflation of the 1970s, and began 25 years of prosperity.

Those were high-return investments. Today's debt is financing

what exactly? The TARP money did undergird the financial

system for a time, and is now being repaid. But most of the

rest has been spent on a political wish list of public

programs ranging from unemployment insurance to wind turbines

to tax credits for golf carts. Borrowing for such low-return

purposes makes America poor in the long run.

So if we are increasing the debt limit, and the Chinese and other countries are going to buy that debt, and we are spending money in the stimulus package that has shown very little return on the massive $787 billion investment, then should we not try Dr. Coburn's method and support his amendment which would basically prevent us from having to increase the debt limit?

This amendment of Dr. Coburn's would rescind $120 billion in spending, 5 percent from each agency of government, other than the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs; directing the agencies to consolidate more than 650 duplicative government programs; rescind unobligated discretionary funds available for more than 2 consecutive fiscal years. Most Americans would be astonished to know that there are still tax dollars sitting out there which have been appropriated and not been spent for more than 2 years, sometimes several years.

Directing GAO to identify duplicative government programs and report the findings to Congress would render the debt limit increase in the underlying bill null and void. It is $1.9 trillion.

Let's just look at a few of the duplicative Federal programs that are out there. A 2004 report by a nonprofit research group listed 21 Federal programs across multiple agencies, many at Health and Human Services that funded childhood obesity programs either as the main focus or as one component of the Federal program.

Child obesity is a serious issue in America. Do we need 21 separate programs to address the issue? Would not we be more efficient if we had a single program instead of spreading them out amongst different Federal agencies?

There are 14 programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education related to foreign exchanges and designed to increase the opportunities for

study abroad, 14 programs. According to a 2003 GAO report, the Federal Government funds more than 44 job training programs administered by nine different Federal agencies across the Federal bureaucracy at a cost of $30 billion.

According to data from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 14 departments within the Federal Government and 49 independent agencies operate exchanges and study abroad programs.

A 2009 GAO report found 69 early education programs administered by nine different agencies. There are over 30 Federal programs that provide financial assistance to students to support postsecondary education at a cost to the taxpayer of over $30 billion every year.

According to a May 2007 report in the Academic Competitiveness Council, there are 105 Federal programs supporting STEM education with aggregate funding of $3.2 billion in 2006. You will note that I am not even talking about millions or hundreds of millions; we are talking about billions.

Here is one. There are at least 17 offender reentry programs across five Federal agencies, different Federal agencies, costing the taxpayers over $250 million annually.

A 2005 GAO study found there are a total of 23 Federal housing programs targeted or have special features for the elderly, 23 Federal housing programs that target or have special features for the elderly.

There are at least nine programs at the USDA tasked with researching and developing biofuels, costing taxpayers nearly $300 million annually. Over $800 million was included in the stimulus bill for these initiatives.

The Federal Government oversees at least 15 different preservation programs costing taxpayers nearly $100 million annually.

There are at least 28 Federal programs totaling over $5 billion that support job training and employment.

Here we are, with an outstanding public debt well over $12.3 trillion. The estimate for this year is the largest in history. The estimated population of the United States is over 307.6 million people. Therefore, each U.S. citizen's share of this debt is approximately $40,100. That is $40,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. That is shameful, shameful spending that has laid this debt on future generations of Americans. The greatness of America is based on the tradition that one generation has passed off to the next generation a nation that is better off than the one they inherited. What kind of a nation are we going to hand off to the next generation of Americans with a debt to the Chinese of $800 billion, a debt of over $3.5 trillion held by foreigners, and the debt goes on and on and on with no end in sight.

Why should we not try Dr. Coburn's method? Why should we not attempt to do something different rather than raising the debt limit every time we have spent so much we have to raise it again?

Let's look at what we spent last year alone: $787 billion on the so- called stimulus bill which amounts to $1.1 trillion, if you calculate the interest; $700 billion in TARP to bail out the banks and other ailing financial institutions; $410 billion for the Omnibus appropriations bill, a package of 9 appropriations bills rolled together, which contained over 9,000 unrequested, unnecessary, run-of- the-mill pork-barrel earmarks; $450 billion for the 2010 Omnibus appropriations bill, a package of 6 bills rolled together, containing 5,000 unrequested earmarks. Let's put them together. In two bills last year, one for 2009, the other for 2010, were at least 14,000 earmarks. The Democratic leadership worked with the President to ram through a $3.5 trillion budget resolution. We have spent $83 billion to bail out the auto companies. There is still a chance that a $2.5 trillion health reform bill may be passed by the other side.

Overall, domestic spending has increased by 14 percent over the last fiscal year. Inflation has been practically zero for all intents and purposes. But the spending has increased by 14 percent. Don't we get it? Don't we see what we are doing to future generations of Americans? Don't we see that a debt for $40,100 for every man, woman, and child in America is unconscionable? Why don't we try the Coburn amendment before we willy-nilly increase the debt limit by another $1.4 trillion? Why? Why can't we at least make an effort?

One thing I know about Dr. Coburn, he researches his information carefully. He has shown us we don't need to raise the debt limit and give ourselves a green light to spend even more. We have before us an opportunity. We can turn things around today. We can pass this amendment and begin the hard work and make the tough decisions necessary to put us on the path to fiscal solvency and national prosperity.

Here we are with a bill before us to increase the debt limit which would increase, then, the debt that every man, woman, and child in America has, as we continue this almost unrestrained spending spree.

I have said to my colleagues for a long time--and I think it was authenticated in Massachusetts recently--the American people are mad. They are angry at the spending. They do not want to lay a huge debt on future generations of Americans. They do not believe there is a shred of fiscal responsibility in the Congress or the administration. I will fairly note that this out-of-control spending was not invented with this administration. Republicans, when they were in charge, let spending get completely out of control. We betrayed our fiscal base. We paid a heavy price for it, but we deserved to pay that price. Now is the time to say stop, stop borrowing against our children and grandchildren's futures. Stop putting ourselves in a precarious situation, where the Chinese own so much of our national debt that they have their hand on the throttle of the American economy.

I hasten to add, it is not in China's interest to hurt the American economy. But it certainly can't be in our interest, in any way, to be in that kind of fiscal jeopardy. We cannot do that--not to mention the $3.5 trillion in debt held by foreigners.

I say to my colleagues, let's look at the Coburn amendment. It is well thought out, well researched. Let's put the brakes on the mortgaging of America's future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am going to speak for just 3 or 4 minutes, but I do not want to interrupt my friend from Alabama.

Mr. President, first, I thank my friend from Alabama for yielding time.

Amendment No. 3303

Among the $120 billion in funding cuts that would be required by the Coburn amendment is a $1.3 billion rescission from the State Department. Section 13 of the amendment specifically directs the Secretary of State to eliminate two programs--the East-West Center and the Asia Foundation--saying this would produce savings.

Even if it made sense to eliminate these programs which have a long history of achievement for our Nation and strong bipartisan, bicameral support, to do so would produce savings of only $42 million--a long way from the $120 billion about which he spoke. The Senator's amendment does not say where the balance of the $1.3 billion cut would come from.

The Senator's Web site mentions two other small programs within the State and Foreign Operations budget that he believes should be cut which total $25 million, and $20 million of that, incidentally, is for the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, something that gets us praise around the world and actually protects the well-being of everybody in this country. It has long been supported by the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee.

The explanation of the Senator from Oklahoma for eliminating these funds is that other nations should be responsible for the conservation of their own tropical forests. Would that it were so. But when they get cut down, they affect those of us in Vermont, Colorado, Oklahoma, or anywhere else. In fact, it is like saying to other nations, no matter how impoverished--for example, Haiti--that they should take care of their own health needs. That ignores the fact that deadly viruses, such as HIV and TB, are as oblivious to national boundaries as are carbon emissions from the destruction of tropical forests. It is a shortsighted and unworkable approach to global problems that affect the American people directly.

In defense of his proposal to rescind $1.3 billion from the State Department, Senator Coburn cites more than $13 billion in funding for Iraq reconstruction that has been wasted, stolen, or lost. I see my good friend from Oklahoma on the floor. I say in that regard, there is no doubt there was deplorable waste, fraud, and abuse of U.S. taxpayer funds by contractors, such as Halliburton, that received no-bid, sweetheart contracts under the last Republican administration. It was probably the most poorly implemented nation-building program in history. At that time, the Republican Congress rubber-stamped those funds that were wasted--probably not wasted if you were a shareholder of Halliburton; you thought it was a good idea because they walked off with so much of it. The White House even opposed efforts by some of us, including Republicans, to create the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction that discovered the misuse of funds.

I also remind everybody that it was the Republican Congress, with a Republican President, that inherited the largest surplus in America's history, created by a Democratic administration, that of President Clinton's, that left a surplus that was paying down the national debt, left a huge surplus to the incoming Republican President. The Republican Congress not only voted to use that surplus to pay for an unnecessary war in Iraq but even cut taxes when we were fighting what ended up being two wars. It is the only time in our Nation's history we have done that--spend the surplus, cut taxes, and somehow these wars that have been going on now for 8 years would pay for themselves.

I think to use the last Republican administration's waste of taxpayer dollars in Iraq as a rationale to rescind funds today that have bipartisan support for the security of our embassies and our diplomats overseas and for programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, the Middle East, Indonesia, Mexico, Central Asia, Israel, and Egypt, where the threats to U.S. national security interests are beyond dispute, would be foolhardy.

Every one of us should agree that not every Federal program deserves to be funded and certainly not because it was funded in the past. I have voted to cut programs in the Appropriations Committee and on this floor because they have gone beyond their useful life span or were ineffective. Some programs are effective. Those that are not should be eliminated.

But the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, with leadership between myself and the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg--we spent the better part of last year making difficult choices of what to fund and what to cut. The Appropriations Committee approved those choices, Republicans and Democrats, all 29 members, with one dissenting vote, and that was on another issue involving abortion. This amendment would cut funding to combat HIV, TB. Countries receive help from us, from Colombia, to Israel, to Egypt, to Mexico. The Senator from Oklahoma, with one strike of the pen, would arbitrarily slash 5 percent of that funding. Should we look for places where we can save money, where programs are not meeting their goals? Of course. But to do it this way, willy-nilly, picking a percentage out of the air with no concern for the consequences, does not protect the security of the American people.

There is another section of the amendment about which I would like to speak. Section 5 of the amendment directs the Secretary of Education to work with the Secretaries of other relevant agencies to consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the student foreign exchange and international education programs. These exchanges are some of the most strongly supported programs by both Democrats and Republicans in the foreign aid budget.

This amendment takes aim at the Benjamin Gilman International Scholarship Program, as well as several Department of Education international education and research programs, some of which are administered by the State Department, and a National Science Foundation program.

The Benjamin Gilman Program, created by Congress, provides scholarships to American undergraduates to study abroad, including students in nontraditional destinations, or to study critical languages, such as Arabic, Persian, and Chinese. Our military, and our intelligence agencies, say there is an unmet need for Americans who can speak these languages. Senator Coburn would cut funding for it.

The Department of Education's Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship Program provides funding for foreign language study at U.S. universities, and several of these programs focus on strengthening study in international business and education, at a time when we are becoming more and more aware we cannot compete just within our borders. Our businesses have to be able to compete with other countries around the world or we lose jobs in America. We should be strengthening our study of international business and education, not cutting these programs.

The amendment would cut other successful exchanges, such as the Fulbright-Hayes programs for teachers, high school students, graduate students, and business professionals. These exchanges bring foreigners with a range of economic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to the United States and they send Americans overseas. At a time when America should be reaching out around the world for our security, for our businesses, we should not be cutting these programs which have been woefully underfunded as both Republicans and Democrats have pointed out.

The Institute for International Education is one example of an organization that effectively administers these programs. It provides citizens of other countries with a chance to learn firsthand about American culture, our values, our government, and our way of life. These are among the most effective ways of countering the misrepresentation and false stereotypes about the United States that we see perpetrated by extremists. Some of these programs and their predecessors I saw during the Cold War period. I remember one of the early meetings I had, along with several others, with President Ronald Reagan. He had spoken about the evil empire, and he said: What would you suggest we do? Of the suggestions that several of us made, I said this: Why don't you visit the Soviet Union and invite their leader to come to the United States next year and visit here?

He said: Why?

I said: Because you really don't know much about them. I pressed him a little on that, but he heard me out, and I said: But they do not know much about you either, and it would force them to learn about you and your staff, and it would force us to learn about them and their staff.

Later, in his second term, President Reagan told me that was some of the best advice he ever got. We know how triumphant his visit was to the Soviet Union and how triumphant it was when Mr. Gorbachev came here, and the two of them learned about each other and worked together to lower the threat of nuclear war.

That is just one example.

Without losing my right to the floor.

I would tell the Senator from Oklahoma that if you look over the last 10 years, there have been significant shortfalls in many of these programs, and in personnel. The increases began first at the request of former President George W. Bush, and then followed by President Obama because they realized the need for us to have these programs for our own security.

My response would be: Where do we make cuts? Your amendment does not say. Do we start with individual countries--Israel, Egypt, and so on? Do we start with programs to combat HIV, or malaria, or programs to eliminate childhood diseases in Africa? These exchanges enable Americans and foreigners to conduct scientific research to increase understanding and cooperation.

Rather than cut funding, Senators on both sides of the aisle have consistently urged the Appropriations Committee to increase funding to expand our efforts to promote better understanding of the United States. If we had funded all the requests for increases, it would be considerably more than it was. Senator Gregg and I stayed within our allocation. Also, I think it was the only appropriations subcommittee that reported a bill with no earmarks.

If there are ways of consolidating to reduce some administrative costs without harming the effectiveness or reducing opportunities to participate in these exchange programs, I am for it. But rather than by amendment to the debt ceiling bill, rather than giving carte blanche to the administration--or any administration--let's consider this in the normal appropriations process in a deliberative way.

Mr. President, we actually work hard on these bills. We make difficult choices. Some things get funded, others do not. We vote up or down. We have to stay within our budget, and we did, and we did it without earmarks. So I believe the amendment should be rejected.

It sounds nice we should just eliminate $2 billion in waste. Who would not want that? Let us be specific. Let us make the hard choices and say where the cuts are going to come from. The Senator's amendment does not do that. I recall a Republican President who gave great speeches about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and then during his administration tripled the national debt. I have heard great speeches by people who have voted to cut taxes during two wars, by people who instead of using the surplus left by the last Democratic President squandered it in a year's time.

Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader on the Senate floor, so I yield the floor.