End Debt Collector Abuse Act of 2010

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act. Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. We can make progress by starting with the laws that already exist. My bill would enhance our core immigration and enforcement laws for both legal and illegal immigrants.

Much has been discussed this Congress on how to proceed on the very complex and, unfortunately at times, partisan issue of immigration reform. Some have introduced non-binding resolutions others have tried to attach

immigration-related measures to non-germane legislative vehicles. But, we're never going to get anywhere with these political stunts which do little to get to the root the problem.

Throughout my service, I have spent considerable time with my constituents and, quite frankly, have anguished with them on how to best address the considerable strain the illegal alien population is having on Utahns. Among other things, I have taken the initiative to increase immigration enforcement in Utah include bringing ICE Quick Response teams to our state, creating an immigration court, and establishing an ICE Field Office Director position to address Utah's immigration concerns. I also brought the 287(g) cross-deputizing program and just recently the Secure Communities program to Utah.

There is no question that more needs to be done. That is something everyone will agree on. Just recently legislation was enacted to enhance border security. I was pleased that this was a bipartisan effort. Some argue that the bill is sufficient to secure our border, but I disagree. There is much work to be done before the border is properly sealed. I continue to work with and support my colleagues whose states are located along the Southwest border. They know what resources we need to deploy to secure the border.

While Utah is not a border state, we still share the same concerns of our neighbors along the border. However, our problems result from a residual effect of a porous border and a breakdown of our immigration enforcement system.

For years, I have been saying most immigration problems could be solved if we would enforce the laws on the books. Unfortunately, the current Administration continues to explore ways to exploit current law and score political points.

During the past several months, the Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status, on a mass basis, to illegal immigrants via deferred action and parole. If the Administration is successful, it would be the equivalent of back-door amnesty for millions. For this reason, my bill specifies that an alien may only be paroled or granted deferred action on a case-by-case basis--not en mass--the way these laws were intended to be used.

The 287(g) and Secure Communities programs continue to be valuable tools to our law enforcement officials in detaining and deporting criminal aliens. For example, in Fiscal Year 2010, the 287(g) program was responsible for detaining 29,295 criminal aliens. What I don't understand is why some cities would choose to not participate in these effective programs. That is why my proposed legislation would require eligible states, counties, or cities to actively participate in the Secure Communities or 287(g) programs or forego compensation for incarceration expenses. Turning a blind eye to these law enforcement programs poses a serious risk to the public and creates sanctuary cities.

When I meet with my constituents, one of their top concerns is how we fix our visa programs. Many are concerned, and with good cause, about how some of these folks are getting into the country. Disturbingly, some visa holders are active participants in organized crime. They come to this country and infiltrate our communities, wreaking havoc in our neighborhoods.

In an effort to address this problem, my bill would provide our State Department consular officers the necessary legal authority to deny members of known gangs from coming into our country. It's not acceptable to allow these thugs to slip through the cracks.

After 9/11, many areas of our immigration system came under scrutiny. One of the top recommendations for reform to our system is to create an exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. Departure information is vital for determining whether foreign visitors are departing the U.S., maintaining their visa status, and evaluating future visa eligibility for these visitors. Not to mention, the ability to track departures goes to the heart of keeping America safe.

Without such exit procedures, however, the task of determining whether an alien has overstayed their visa in the United States is nearly impossible. Since 2004, the Department of Homeland Security has been testing exit programs and departure controls at U.S. airports for visa holders leaving the United States. As recently as July 2009, another pilot program was concluded by the Department of Homeland Security. To date, we still haven't seen any implementation of exit procedures for our country's visitors, nor have we seen any final conclusions made by the Department. It has been over 6 years since the first pilot program concluded. It is time to act.

Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a mandatory exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. This should have been done years ago.

Additionally, the proposed legislation would eliminate the fraud- laden visa lottery, known as the Diversity Visa program. At present, applicants of the visa lottery program are open to being defrauded by so-called service providers who offer to assist them in obtaining Diversity Visa status. Unlike other immigrant visa categories, this is one of the few visas that allows people to immigrate to the United States without having any connection to the country. In other words, the applicants may not have any family, employment, or even provide an economic tie to the United States. And because of limited availability of verification, the program presents serious national security concerns.

Let me be clear: if anyone is a proponent of a diverse nation, one that enjoys the influence of many cultures, it is me. But what we have right now in the visa lottery program does not accomplish the intended goal.

After careful consultation with State Department officials, I have been advised that the Diversity Visa program needs serious reform, and some have even called for complete elimination of the program. In light of this guidance, I propose to sunset the Diversity Visa program, unless the State Department recommends to Congress how best to combat fraud and eliminate abuse currently in the program.

One of the most heated issues that is continually raised by my constituents, and many across the country, is the impact that illegal aliens are having upon our welfare programs. It came to my attention that Los Angeles County, California, actually tracks this information. Much to my amazement, L.A. County confirms that in 2009 alone, they distributed over $2.4 billion in Federal-State welfare and food stamp programs. Of that amount, $569 million was issued to households that include illegal aliens. Let me reiterate: the illegal alien population in L.A. County received over a half-billion dollars of welfare benefits in one year alone.

In order to have an honest discussion about the drain illegal aliens are having upon our welfare systems, we must be armed with state- specific information to understand the extent of this problem.

Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and any other appropriate Federal agency, to submit an annual report to Congress outlining the total dollar amount of Federal welfare benefits received by households of illegal aliens for each state and the District of Columbia. The annual report would also include the overall dollar amount each state spends on Federal welfare benefits.

Without having this information, we will continue to dismiss the serious economic ramifications to our country's prosperity. We cannot afford to perpetuate this problem any longer.

My legislation also includes a provision which revisits the legal immigrant policy included in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, P.L. 111-3. The CHIP Reauthorization law overturned language requiring a 5-year waiting period before legal immigrants may be eligible for federal health coverage. The 5-year waiting period was included in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193. As my colleagues will recall, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act required sponsors of legal immigrants to be responsible for individuals' expenses during the first 5 years of residency in our country. States had the option of offering legal immigrants CHIP and Medicaid coverage with State only dollars. In other words, States could not

receive Federal matching dollars for covering these legal immigrants.

The 2009 CHIP law overturned that policy. Today, States may still cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women who have been in the U.S. less than 5 years. However, the big difference is states now receive Federal matching dollars for covering those individuals.

The provision in the bill I am introducing today would permit states to continue receiving federal matching dollars for covering legal immigrant children and legal immigrant pregnant women but two conditions must be met. First, the state must demonstrate that it has covered 90 percent of its U.S. citizen children and pregnant women eligible for CHIP or Medicaid. These individuals' family income may not exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Second, the State must demonstrate that it is not supplanting state dollars which were being used to cover legal immigrants prior to passage of the 2009 CHIP reauthorization law with Federal dollars.

Another top concern I regularly hear about is identity theft--that of both adults and children who have to spend a great amount of their time and money to clear their good names and restore their credit history.

In 2006, parents of Utah 2-year old Tyler Lybbert realized their daughter's identity had been stolen by 38-year old Jose Tinoco. By the time the Lybberts became aware of the fraud, Mr. Tinoco had already taken out two loans and opened credit cards--saddling Tyler with over $15,000 in debt. Little Tyler was left holding the bag.

Fortunately, when Mr. Tinoco tried to obtain a loan from a local Utah bank, an employee spotted the discrepancy and alerted Tyler's parents. Mr. Tinoco was caught, but the Lybberts were left with countless hours of work to correct the fraud perpetrated against their child.

This past weekend, the Utah press reported on another identity theft case. A newly married radiology student at Weber State University has been battling to reclaim his identity for the last 15 years. When Cameron Noble was 7 years old his Social Security number was stolen by Mr. Jose Zavala of California--an over 60-year-old man.

Noble's parents thought they had corrected the error but when Cameron began working at the age of 16 he started receiving notices that his wages were being garnished to pay child support. The problem has continued to haunt him ever since--in the form of tax withholdings and credit report confusion. He is now nearing the end of the process to obtain a new Social Security number.

It is not a secret that many in the illegal immigrant community perpetuate identity theft with stolen or fabricated Social Security numbers, SSN. The identity theft they commit often affects the very young--who may not notice problems for years or decades until they are old enough to apply for their first job, car or school loan, or credit card.

As in little Tyler Lybbert's case, why did it take a bank employee to pick up on the theft? Because there is no formal system established to alert SSN holders when potential fraud or improper usage have occurred.

The federal agency that is best suited to track the use of mismatched SSN numbers is the Internal Revenue Service, IRS. That is why my bill requires the IRS to send a notice to an employer that an inaccurate SSN has been discovered for an employee. If the employer does not respond to the notice within 60-days to correct the inaccuracy, my legislation will require the IRS to notify the SSN holder or to parents and guardians of a minor, that a discrepancy has been detected and to do the following: if it is an actual mismatch to contact the IRS; if they suspect fraudulent use, the SSN holder is provided with contact information for the FTC and various credit bureaus to report the problem; and finally if no response is received by the SSN holder, the IRS would be required to refer the account number to appropriate Federal agencies for possible investigation.

Let me pause here to underscore a point. Currently, the original SSN holder never receives notice when a mismatch has occurred. Quite frankly, I do not have the assurances that the IRS is requiring much of the employer to correct or verify the submission. That is not acceptable. In this day and age, when at a click of a mouse, someone can apply for credit cards, mortgages, or even car loans, there is no excuse why SSN holders are left in the dark.

One can only imagine that if this simple notification step was taken in the case of little Tyler Lybbert or the Noble family that years of laborious efforts and countless hours of notifying credit bureaus, banks, and other authorities, could have been greatly reduced if not avoided all together.

To make matters more confusing in this area of the law, the Supreme Court has more or less tied the hands of prosecutors in going after these thieves and those who are involved in so-called document mills. The case of Flores-Figueroa v. United States undermined prosecutors' longstanding practice of using the aggravated identity theft statute by requiring them to also prove that a defendant knew that he or she was using a real person's identity information, as opposed to counterfeit information not connected to an actual person.

To clarify the Criminal Code and provide our prosecutors with the latitude they need to pursue these cases, my bill makes clear that defendants who possess or otherwise use identity information not their own, without lawful authority, and in the commission of another felony is still punishable for aggravated identity fraud, regardless of the defendants' ``knowledge'' of the victim.

Finally, my bill's identity theft would require the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the FTC, and the Commissioner of Social Security to conduct a study to determine the most feasible and cost- effective ways to protect the credit worthiness of individuals, especially that of children.

Mexican Cartel drug violence has been placed front and center by the media and members of this body. Some of my fellow colleagues have called for more resources directed to this problem. As additional federal law enforcement personnel and military units continue to be deployed to the southwest border the focus has been on weapons, drug interdiction and bulk cash smuggling. While I recognize the importance of these border enforcement activities, too little attention is being paid to outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations is causing increasing environmental damage, especially on publicly owned lands. From 2004-2009 more than 11 million marijuana plants have been eradicated from federal public lands. Outdoor marijuana cultivation is the chief source of revenue for Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Growing marijuana in the U.S. saves traffickers the risk and expense of smuggling their product across the border and allows gangs to produce their crops closer to local markets. Illegal alien workers are smuggled in from Mexico to serve as laborers and provide security to the grow plots. Mexican gang plots can often be distinguished from those of domestic-based growers based on their plant volume and security measures. Many of the plots are encircled with crude explosives and are patrolled by armed illegal aliens providing security for the crop.

In my home State of Utah, the Drug Enforcement Administration and local law enforcement have seized more than 110,000 marijuana plants this year. Each plant can yield one pound of marijuana with a street value of $1,000. These remote plots were on federal land and nestled under the cover in a national forest or hidden high in the rugged-yet- fertile tracts of federal land. All of the sites were far from the eyes of law enforcement, where growers can take the time needed to grow far more potent marijuana. Growers of these fields have even created irrigation systems to disrupt or divert water sources. They even use illegal fertilizers that damage the environment and the local eco- system.

In one recent incident in Garfield County, Utah an illegal alien grow worker was armed with a shotgun and confronted six teenage girls who inadvertently hiked into the marijuana field. The worker brandished a shotgun and demanded to use their cell phone. Fortunately, the group of girls were able to run away from this armed man

and prevented what could have been a very tragic outcome. The girls were quite traumatized and reported the incident to local police. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the local authorities apprehended the man a short time later.

So far this year in Utah, as a result of joint investigative efforts between Federal, State and local law enforcement, 20 arrests have been made in connection with the outdoor cultivation of marijuana on Federal lands. Out of the 20 arrests made, 19 were illegal aliens. This is not a problem that is unique to Utah. Other States with substantial federal lands are also seeing a spike in marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations, including Colorado, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Michigan.

It is for this reason why my legislation would provide tougher penalties for cultivating marijuana on federal lands and destroying the environment. Provisions of this legislation would also require the Office of National Drug Control Policy to formulate a comprehensive and coordinated action plan to address marijuana cultivation on Federal lands. This plan will be a broad strategic approach to disrupt Mexican drug trafficking organizations' central source of revenue and a key reason for organized alien smuggling.

The fight to control the border is no longer isolated to just the physical boundary between the United States and Mexico. Securing the border now means addressing Mexican cartels; prohibiting mass deferral or parole; streamlining the visa process; requiring participation in key law enforcement programs; clamping down on identity theft; tracking the amount of welfare benefits being diverted by illegal immigrant households; ensuring that dollars are being used to cover newly eligible American children in CHIP and Medicaid; and keeping our great national parks and Federal lands safe and free from drug traffickers, drug cultivation, and environmental damage.

Let me conclude by saying this bill represents key issues that are important to my Utah constituents and Americans across the country. They are common sense solutions to strengthen our commitment to legal immigration and American's security. I urge my colleagues to put partisanship aside and support this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3919, an act to remove Endangered Species Act, ESA,

protections for gray wolves. Delisting of this species is long overdue.

Gray wolves are listed as endangered under the ESA in the United States, except in Minnesota where they are listed as threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed ESA protection from these wolves in 2009, but subsequently reinstated protection under a court decision following a lawsuit.

Legislative action is the only solution to stop the endless cycle of litigation and return the sovereign ability of states to manage their wildlife. Gray wolves are the iconic species of the ESA. But we cannot let the preconceived and inaccurate perceptions surrounding this animal prevent us from doing our due diligence in providing protections and safeguards for other species including elk, deer, moose, and big horn sheep. With a population growth rate of 24 percent, gray wolf overpopulation is now doing significant damage to wildlife populations throughout the West and Midwest.

Gray wolf predation is erasing decades of effort and hundreds of millions invested in rebuilding healthy big game populations. Wolves do not know or care where recovery plan lines are drawn. They will roam wherever necessary to find adequate food and habitat. Research indicates that wolf and ungulate populations are generally inversely proportional and cyclical over relatively long periods of time.

Ill-advised experimentation and anti-management philosophy continues to be pushed by extreme animal rights and anti-sportsmen special interest groups. This war on the west threatens big game herds, proactive State wildlife management, use of renewable wildlife resources, and the western way of life. This bill, while viewed with suspicion and opposed with philosophical arguments by some environmental organizations, ensures that delicate wildlife populations are restored to healthy levels.

When Congress passed the ESA, it envisioned legislation to make certain that species would not become extinct. The key to success of the new law was finding a way to conserve and protect species truly in danger of becoming extinct. The gray wolf is not endangered as a species. There are thousands alive and well in North America. The ESA has become a vehicle by which some organizations and individuals seek to halt all activities on our public lands which they happen to oppose. I would submit to you that such use of the ESA was not envisioned nor would it have been condoned by a majority of those who originally crafted the law.

Some groups want to use the gray wolf as a surrogate for other agendas. Others have used it to raise a lot of money from citizens of this country truly concerned about the place of the wolf in our environment. Still others have used it for political purposes. What a shame that the laws of this great Nation can be subverted for purposes other than the reason the law was originally written.

The gray wolf has been protected by the ESA since 1973, the year the ESA was passed. The single exception to that classification is in the State of Minnesota where they are classified as threatened. The original recovery plan for the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies was written in 1974. The main States involved are owned largely by the Federal Government. Thirty percent of Montana, 50 percent of Wyoming, and 64 percent of Idaho is federally owned. Access to and use of the public lands and resources on them has a great deal to do with the economy of these sparsely populated States. When the economy suffers, so do these communities and these people.

The working men and women of our States have no alternative but to rely on continued access to and the use of grass, water, timber, and minerals from public lands to support their families. Those working people have mortgages to pay just like you and I; they have bills that are due each month; and they want to be able to feed and clothe their children just as you and I do.

We must recognize the legitimate concerns of the hundreds of honest, hardworking citizens who are being directly affected by the continued listing of the gray wolf on the ESA. In my opinion, we have a responsibility to protect their right to make an honest living and to live the lifestyle they have chosen.

I hope my colleagues will join me in this attempt to resolve this important issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 4674

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act to create a safe environment for students and school personnel by creating minimum standards around the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. In December, I introduced a similar bill. But today, I come to the floor with my good friend and colleague Senator Burr, with a revised act that incorporates additional protections for students.

In 1998, the Hartford Courant ran an award-winning series of stories about the use of seclusion and restraint in hospitals, residential facilities, and group homes for individuals with psychiatric and developmental disabilities. The Courant uncovered a hidden epidemic, confirming 142 deaths occurring during or after the use of seclusion or restraint.

One of those 142 cases was an 11-year-old boy from my home State of Connecticut. He was restrained face-down in a position that restricted his air flow. He died as a result.

In response, I led the charge to establish Federal standards to prevent the misuse of these practices. I helped pass The Children's Health Act of 2000, which included the Compassionate Care Act that I originally drafted to put these standards in place in certain hospitals and residential facilities. We

wanted to include schools in this legislation, but were unable to do so. Sadly, the need could not have been greater.

Over the past year, reports from the National Disability Rights Network, NDRN, the Alliance to Prevent Restraint, Aversive Interventions, and Seclusion, APRAIS, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc., COPAA, and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, have painted a picture disturbingly similar to the one the Hartford Courant discovered more than a decade ago.

The statistics are chilling--hundreds of incidents of physical injury, psychological trauma, even death--but the stories are even more devastating.

The GAO found many examples of the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint in the report it released on May 19, 2009.

A 14 year-old boy was restrained face-down by a teacher because he would not stay seated in class. The 230 lb. teacher sat on the 129 lb. boy, restricting his airflow and resulting in the boy's death.

A 4 year-old girl with cerebral palsy and autism was restrained in a wooden chair with leather straps for being ``uncooperative.''

In one school district, children with disabilities as young as six years old were allegedly placed in strangleholds, restrained for extended periods of time, confined to dark rooms, and tethered to ropes and prevented from using the restroom until they urinated on themselves.

To be clear, school personnel go to work every day with the goal of educating children, not harming them. I have the utmost respect and appreciation for the difficult job they do and want to make it clear that my concern signifies no disrespect for their challenging jobs, or the dangers they sometimes face.

However, these tragic stories reflect inadequate training and a lack of resources on the state and local levels to implement effective interventions, such as school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. According to a report by COPPA, over 71 percent of the 185 incidents they identified occurred in schools with no positive behavioral interventions or supports. If school personnel are provided with the necessary tools to prevent dangerous situations, the number of incidents requiring restraint and seclusion will decrease.

Just as students have a right to learn in a safe environment, educators have a right to work in a safe environment. They should be provided with the proper training and support to prevent injury to themselves and others.

In some states, parents have successfully advocated for laws that provide these resources, as well as guidelines to ensure that they are used effectively.

But the patchwork of state laws and regulations is confusing and especially troublesome for transient students.

According to the GAO study, 19 states have no law or regulations concerning seclusion and restraint in schools. Some laws apply to only certain schools or situations, and some apply to restraint but not seclusion. Only 19 states require parental notification, only 17 states require staff training, and only eight specifically prohibit restraints that restrict air flow.

Therefore, Senator Burr and I will today introduce the Keeping All Students Safe Act, a bill that will address these issues.

Our bill will establish clear minimum standards for the use of restraint and seclusion in schools, closely based on the Children's Health Act of 2000. It will also provide resources to assist with policy implementation and provide school personnel with necessary tools, training, and support.

It will improve data collection, analysis, and identification of effective practices to prevent and reduce seclusion and restraint in schools, so we may better understand the scope of the problem and the effectiveness of our solutions.

Specifically, the legislation will prohibit the use of seclusion and restraint in schools unless a student's behavior poses an immediate danger of serious physical injury and less restrictive interventions would be ineffective.

It will prohibit the use of mechanical, chemical, and physical restraints that restrict air flow to the lungs.

This legislation will require adequate training and state certification of school personnel imposing seclusion or restraint, immediate parental notification when such an incident occurs, and a debriefing session to prevent future incidents.

As a result of this act, the Department of Education will conduct, and provide to Congress, a national assessment that analyzes data on seclusion and restraint and determines effective practices in preventing and reducing the number of incidents. This assessment will provide us with a more accurate picture of the extent of seclusion and restraint in schools, and will help direct additional future efforts to ensure that our children and those who educate them are safe.

The Keeping All Students Safe Act includes language that solidifies Protection and Advocacy agencies', P&A, abilities to serve the students who are in need of protection. This legislation is meant to ensure that these P&As are spending their time and resources protecting our Nation's children in schools, and not in court about this already settled issue.

Finally, this legislation will amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as well as the Higher Education Act, to provide additional planning for and training on the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports.

I want to thank the many organizations representing individuals with disabilities, students, teachers, and schools that all came to the table with recommendations. Their time, energy, and input made this a much stronger and more effective bill, and I truly appreciate their hard work and support. I am especially thankful for Senator Burr's commitment to this issue and his insights that have strengthened the bill. I am also grateful to Secretary Duncan for his leadership on this issue at the Department of Education. Finally, I want to thank my colleague and good friend, Chairman George Miller in the House of Representatives. Earlier this year, he introduced companion legislation that passed the House in March. Senator Burr and I look forward to working with him to pass this into law.

Every child has a right to be safe in the place where he or she goes to learn and grow. Every educator deserves the training and support he or she needs to do his or her job safely and effectively. The Keeping All Students Safe Act will help to prevent tragedies in our schools. I am proud to introduce it today, and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a very serious issue that affects many Americans, and that is premature births. More than half a million babies will be born preterm this year and approximately 28,000 babies will die before they turn 1 year old.

In my home State of Connecticut, there were more than 4,000 preterm births in 2007, representing approximately 11 percent of all live births in the State. Between 1997 and 2007, the rate of infants born preterm in Connecticut increased 3 percent.

The incidence of preterm birth represents a huge disconnect between our scientific knowledge and our capacity to meet basic and critical needs in maternal-child health. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, babies who died from preterm birth-related causes accounted for more than 36 percent of infant deaths in 2006. For newborns, prematurity is the leading cause of death.

Of the surviving preemies, approximately one-fourth will have serious health complications including hearing loss, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, acute respiratory diseases, and other maladies. These health problems not only affect the child, but also place a financial and emotional burden on many families. According to the Institute of Medicine, the annual societal costs associated with preterm birth were $26.2 billion in 2005 or $51,600 per infant born preterm. Nearly two-thirds of this cost was for medical care. More importantly, the $26.2 billion estimate does not include the cost of medical care beyond early childhood or caretaker costs such as lost wages.

In nearly half of all cases, physicians and scientists cannot pinpoint a cause for preterm labor and delivery. However, research has shown that causes of preterm birth may include neighborhood characteristics, environmental exposures, biological factors, and medical conditions. Many of these factors can occur in combination, particularly for those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority groups. Accordingly, there are significant disparities in the rates of preterm birth across these groups, with the highest rate of preterm births for non-Hispanic African Americans at 17.5 percent in 2008, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. It is clear that a greater commitment to eliminating these inequalities is needed. As the chairman of the U.S. Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions' Subcommittee on Children and Families, ensuring the health of America's children has been my life's work, making the correction of these inequalities an issue of great importance.

In 2006, my colleague Senator Alexander and I worked to pass the Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver Infants Early Act or PREEMIE Act, Public Law 109-450, which authorized finding to enhance Federal research related to preterm labor and delivery and increased public and provider education and support services. Among the results of the PREEMIE Act were the 2008 Surgeon General's Conference on Preterm Birth and expanded research activities at CDC. The most notable accomplishment to date is a 3 percent decline in the preterm birth rate from 2007 to 2008. But there is still much work to be done. We must build on the progress recently achieved and use both public and private efforts to accelerate this decrease in the rate of preterm birth.

For these reasons, I rise today to join my colleague from Tennessee to introduce the PREEMIE Act to reauthorize these vital activities. It is my hope that this legislation will complement many of the efforts being conducted by the private sector, such as the March of Dimes campaign to raise public awareness and reduce the rate of preterm births. I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting a healthy start for America's children by supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, as a co-chair of the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus, I rise today to introduce the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2010 with my colleague, Senator Sherrod Brown. This legislation provides an excellent opportunity to address a critical disparity that exists in our Nation's health care system.

Individuals with disabilities can face a myriad of challenges in accessing the health care they need and deserve. Such was the case for Debbie Blanchard, a woman who lived with Spina Bifida for nearly 56 years, and who passed away in August 2008 from cervical cancer. Due to the challenges she faced in finding a physician whose office and examination tables were accessible for individuals with disabilities, Debbie was not able to seek regular well-woman exams, including cervical cancer screenings. The barriers Debbie faced in physically accessing the regular preventive care she needed unfortunately contributed to her cervical cancer going undetected until it was too late. The lack of accessible care clearly contributed to her untimely death.

The Spina Bifida community is devastated by Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing, and we in the Congressional Spina Bifida Caucus wish to help ensure that the challenges and barriers that contributed to her illness and death are eliminated. To that end, we have developed the Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act in an effort to help facilitate access to health care by individuals with disabilities, including, but not limited to, those with Spina Bifida, and help them to identify providers whose offices and examination rooms are accessible for individuals with disabilities.

Before I discuss the details of this bill, I believe it is important to recognize the scope of the problem we are dealing with. According to the U.S. Census, more than 54 million Americans, about one out of every five, live with some level of disability. Approximately 34 million of those are classified as having a severe disability. In Connecticut, more than 540,000 individuals are living with some level of disability. Of those individuals, close to 22,000 have physical disabilities.

Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that individuals with disabilities have difficulty in accessing routine and specialized health care. Numerous barriers exist for these patients, including the inability to find a health care provider who understands how to treat individuals with disabilities and is willing to have those individuals as patients. According to a survey commissioned by the National Organization on Disability, 19 percent of persons with disabilities reported they needed medical care within the previous year and did not get it. This is a number more than three times the percentage for those without disabilities.

Women with disabilities are particularly vulnerable. A study by the Center for Research on Women with Disabilities showed that nearly one- third of women with disabilities surveyed reported being denied services at a physician's office solely because of their disability, and 56 percent described their physicians' offices and hospitals as ill-prepared to accommodate their specific needs. Research by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research shows that women with disabilities are less likely to have Pap smears and mammograms and are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage of breast cancer. These women are less likely to receive standard treatments and more likely to have poor outcomes.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-l48, includes an important component to establish standards for medical diagnostic equipment such as examination tables and chairs to improve access to health care for individuals with disabilities and I applaud Senator Harkin for his leadership on that provision. As such, the legislation I propose today seeks to complement existing programs and other pending proposals. The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would empower individuals with disabilities with the information and tools they need to identify accessible providers. It would also increase awareness among health professionals of the need to provide an accessible environment. The bill provides for four key programs to achieve these goals.

First, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to provide formula-based grants to States to create on-line directories of health care providers accessible to individuals with disabilities. States would not be required to engage in this activity, and the grants are strictly voluntary.

Second, it authorizes HHS to develop a pilot program to increase health care provider awareness of the need to provide accessible environments, examination rooms, and examination tables for individuals with disabilities.

Third, it authorizes the HHS Office on Disability, with the help of national organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to develop resources to support individuals with disabilities in their efforts to find accessible providers. Such resources include ``tips cards'' and questions to ask when calling a provider for the first time to make an appointment.

Finally, the bill authorizes HHS to create a National Advisory Committee on Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities to ensure intra-agency coordination of efforts to improve access to care for individuals with disabilities.

The Debbie Blanchard Access to Health Care for Individuals with Disabilities Act would be a significant step in ensuring health care equity for the more than 50 million Americans who live with a disability. Debbie Blanchard's tragic passing should serve as a lesson on the barriers that exist for individuals with disabilities in accessing basic quality health care. We should take action to ensure that these barriers are eliminated to prevent Debbie's story from being repeated. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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