Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to express my sadness over the passing of Senator Dan Inouye.

Dan Inouye came to this government, started his government service, at least, 60 years ago in the territorial legislature of Hawaii. He came to Congress when Hawaii became a State in 1959, to the Senate in 1963, and was second only, I guess, in service to Robert Byrd. He was a serious man, a solid man, a patriot, and one who always had a good spirit about how he conducted his affairs and how he related to other Members of the Senate, to his constituents, and to the American people.

Dan had served in the most violent combat and was grievously wounded himself. He was part of the 442d Regimental Combat Team, a 4,000-man unit that served in brutal combat. They were replaced 3\1/2\ times in personnel to maintain their strength, with 14,000 having served in that combat team during the brutal combat in Italy. There were 9,500 who received Purple Hearts and 21 Medal of Honors, including Senator Inouye's Medal of Honor.

It was a remarkable time and a remarkable commitment Dan Inouye demonstrated to the country he loved.

I know we will talk about his record, and I may do that later myself, but I want to say what I think about Dan Inouye at his core. He shared with us a few weeks ago at the prayer breakfast--and we don't quote what people say at that meeting--his feelings about war and his participation in it. It was one of the most moving presentations I think any of us had heard, and it was so well received by the people there. The truth is, Senator Inouye did not like war. He hated war. He knew the destructive power of war and how people suffered as a result of it, and he voted against a number of resolutions that would commit the United States to military action.

But at the same time, there was no doubt, based on his ranking and chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Appropriations Committee over a period of years--decades--he was the person who always, at bottom, could be counted on to ensure this Nation was well defended; that we did not make mistakes.

He and Senator Ted Stevens had a unique relationship. When something developed that was important for the Defense Department, and it involved a danger to our government or could do damage to the Department or they seriously needed something--and oftentimes in this government, we can't respond and we don't respond effectively--Dan Inouye and Ted Stevens would go in and it would be fixed. They understood that peace through strength was the best way to avoid war, and they felt a sense of great responsibility to ensure the Defense Department was not damaged on their watch. Their experience and their judgment was such they could tell the difference between whines and complaints and real danger to America's defense capability.

I would say that Dan Inouye has established a record that places him among the finest Senators ever to serve here, one of the finest human beings to serve here, and I want to say, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, how much I appreciated his particular commitment to ensuring that America's defense capability remains second to none and his willingness to take the steps necessary to maintain our defense at the level we would want it to be.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the way we arrived at this point is the Congressional Budget Office, our chosen authority on budget matters, has concluded that the legislation violates the budget, and they submitted analysis to that effect that has been provided to the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, an honorable chairman of the committee. He and his staff have examined it, and they concluded that it does. They have advised the Parliamentarian.

Senator Toomey has now raised the budget point of order, and based on the report from the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Parliamentarian will rule that this legislation spends more than we agreed to spend under the Budget Control Act limitations and will therefore sustain it. The people who are promoting the legislation will seek to waive the budget, ignore the fact that it violates our spending limits, and pass the bill anyway. I think that is bad.

We have had a series of these votes. It is time for the people who advance legislation in the body to be careful, and when they submit legislation that it stays within the budget. When they block this legislation, it violates it.

In August a year ago, Congress agreed to certain spending limitations. It was not enough in my view, but there were some noticeable limitations. We would still spend more every year but limit the growth. Regardless, it was limited. There was a limit on how much we could spend. Whether it is up or down, it limited it, and this would be in violation of it.

I wish we could get to a point of where the legislation was fixed before it got to the floor and was in compliance with the budget.

I say to my colleagues, as ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, we can get the score. CBO will give us the score. There is plenty of opportunity to have this information before the vote and before the bill comes before the floor.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, something special happened earlier today. An important principle is being established in the Senate, and that principle is that we will adhere to the budget agreement we made with the American people 16 months ago. In other words, we agreed, in at least certain accounts, to have a limit on spending. Spending will still increase every year over 10 years, but not as much as it would have increased. We agreed that we would abide by the limit and we would not spend more than that.

We have had four consecutive bills brought to the floor of this Senate--cavalierly, I would suggest--directly in violation of the spending limits we agreed to just a little over a year ago. As a result, I or some other Member of the Senate made a budget point of order. That budget point of order said that the legislation before us violates the budget limits, it spends too much, and we object.

Each time, our Democratic leadership moved to waive the budget point of order. To forget the budget. To spend above the budget. To not worry about the budget. Just spend the money because this is a good bill, they said. It has good proposals, and anybody who opposes it is against these good proposals.

So we now have had four votes and for all four of those votes, the Senate has said: No, we are not going to waive the budget. We are going to live within the agreement of spending we reached just last year.

There is no reason these bills couldn't have been brought in within the budget. There has been no reason they shouldn't be within the budget. Some were not over the budget spending by much, but we have to adhere to that principle. I have been very proud that Members of this Senate in sufficient numbers have said: No, we are going to honor the promise we made to the American people, and we are going to do that, and we are not going to bust the budget.

So I think it is sending a message, and the message needs to be received.

Initially, the spin in this body has been, Oh, Senator Sessions and his objectors don't want any good legislation to pass. They are just using the Budget Act to block it.

But I think we are changing that now, and I think the American people are going to see what has happened. We have had seven votes on the budget. The last four have been successful in enforcing the budget. I think the American people are going to start asking, why are you, Senator, voting to waive the budget every single time? Didn't you agree to certain spending limits? Every time a bill came up, why did you vote to spend more than you agreed to spend, spend more than you told us you were going to spend?

I think that is the message that ought to be coming out of here. I will go a little further. If somebody has to have legislation passed, don't blame the people who raised the budget point of order; blame yourself if you don't bring it to the floor in a way that does not violate the budget. That is important. I think that is being established now, and that is what I think we should expect of anyone who wants to move legislation in the U.S. Senate. If a Senator wants to get the vote and get the legislation passed, be sure they comply with the agreement we made.

What agreement was that? Sixteen months ago, in August, the debt limit had been reached, and it was put off and delayed, and we got to the very last minute, and they reached this secret agreement--not publicly as it should have been, but we reached an agreement, and the agreement included at least some limits on spending. I didn't like the way it was done, but it did propose certain limits. It exempted 98 percent of Medicare spending from being cut. It exempted the food stamp program. Medicaid was totally exempted from any cuts. But many parts of the budget were controlled, had their spending levels controlled by the budget. As a result, the agreement was passed and the debt ceiling--the limit on the amount of money that can be borrowed by the U.S. Government--was raised by $2.1 trillion.

We are now borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and the Congress can limit, as the Constitution provides, how much the U.S. Government can borrow. We had just about reached that limit. Spending was going to have to drop 40 percent--right across

the board, perhaps, unless the debt limit was raised. So we raised it so we could continue to borrow. But the promise was that over 10 years, the level of spending would be reduced by the same amount that we raised the debt limit.

So we raised the debt limit by $2.1 trillion, and spending was promised to be reduced over the next 10 years by $2.1 trillion. Now we have already spent that $2.1 trillion. I hate to tell my colleagues but by January and February, this body is going to be right back here dealing with the question of hitting the debt limit again. This year, it looks as though we will have another deficit well over $1 trillion. In fact, the first 2 months of this calendar year were extraordinarily bad--almost $300 billion in debt in the first 2 months. If we continued at this rate, the deficit would be the largest ever in the history of the Republic. So something needs to be done about that.

We made an agreement the last time we increased the debt limit. For us to go back on that, to not follow the budget agreement before the ink is dry on it--before barely a year is gone--to continue bringing up bills that violate that agreement, then the American people would have a right to have no confidence in us and to wonder what is going on: You promised us you were going to reduce the growth of spending, and as soon as the shoe starts getting a little tight or the belt starts squeezing, you cut and run, Senators.

So far, at least in recent weeks, we have been doing rather well on this path of saying we will adhere to the budget agreement. I think on each one of the votes, we have had some Democratic support, but it is mostly Republicans that have held to the budget.

Where are we today? We are talking about the fiscal cliff. The President campaigned around this country, and he said: I have a balanced plan, and that balanced plan is going to have so much in spending cuts and so much in tax increases, and it needs to be balanced. You Republicans have to have more tax increases. Our country needs to get itself on a sound financial path. And I have a deficit reduction plan.

He ran a television advertisement in the last months of his campaign that said: I have a plan to pay down the debt. Earlier this year, his budget director came before the committee and would not disavow the claim that the President has a plan to pay down the debt. I would just say that is one of the greatest financial misrepresentations ever, that the President of the United States would tell the American people: Don't worry, elect me, I have a plan to pay down the debt. He has no such plan--nothing close to it.

Under the score of the Congressional Budget Office, over the next 10 years, we will add $9 trillion in debt to the deficit of the United States.

That is almost $1 trillion a year for 10 years in additional debt. It goes down some in the midyears, but in years 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, the deficits go up every year. That is not what I thought the President was talking about or, I think, the American people thought he was talking about when he said: I want a plan that will pay down the debt. I am going to raise taxes and we are going to pay down the debt and we will have spending cuts also.

What is it we now know about his plan? This is the essence of it, as shown on this chart I have in the Chamber. This chart is an outline of the President's deficit reduction plan. This is what the President is proposing to do. He started off a few weeks ago at $1.6 trillion in new taxes. Now he is talking about $1.4 trillion, I understand. That is the latest iteration of the tax increases: $1,400 billion in tax increases.

Where will that money go? Will it change the debt course of America? Will it put us on a sound path? Can we go home at night and say: Wow. I am glad they finally got their act together.

Let's examine what they are proposing. They are proposing to spend above the BCA, Budget Control Act, limits I just talked about that we agreed to only 16 months ago. Those limits include the sequestration of $1.2 trillion in spending. Those limits are in law. The law would have to be changed to avoid these cuts. The President proposes to change the law and to eliminate $1,200 billion of those cuts--$1.2 trillion off the table--that is 60 percent of the cuts that were agreed to when we raised the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. It would wipe out 60 percent of it just like that. That is new spending above the law in effect today, busting the limits I just mentioned. Busting the limits that we have been successfully enforcing.

In addition to that, he has no funds to pay for the doc fix, also known as the sustainable growth rate for doctor payments. If we do not fix the sustainable growth rate, physicians will have a 25 percent or so cut in their reimbursement rates for doing Medicare work. For many of them, it is half the work they do. Such a reduction could not be tolerated, so it has to be fixed and the President knows that. It costs about $400 billion to fix it but the President provides no money for that. That cost must be added to the spending in his plan.

The Social Security contribution holiday, or payroll holiday, is another is more spending he doesn't include, that has to be accounted for. If we do not pay as much into Social Security as we would otherwise, then the U.S. Treasury has to borrow that money and put it into the Social Security trust fund. People get more money in their paycheck but less money goes into Social Security. That is another $110 billion in spending in the President's plan.

The Administration wants to spend $50 billion more on transportation and $30 billion more on an unemployment insurance extension.

Overall that totals $1,790 billion in new spending in the President's plan. Do they have any reductions in spending? Yes. They are talking about $400 billion in mandatory spending reductions. Most of that, apparently, will be reducing--maybe $300 billion of it--payments to providers in Medicare and Medicaid--providers: that is your doctor and your hospital--cut them some more. They were already cut deeply when the President's health care law passed. Whether that will ever stick, I have my doubts.

But let's assume it does stick. That would mean the President's plan results in $1,390 billion in higher spending--$1.39 trillion. Remember he wants new higher taxes of $1,400 billion. Recall, under the current path, under the current spending limits in the Budget Control Act, we are increasing the debt by $9 trillion over the next ten years. Under the President's plan, whereby he raises taxes $1.4 trillion and raises spending $1.39 trillion, we would add to the debt $8.99 trillion. What does it mean? It means we are going to have a major tax increase and virtually the same amount of new spending--no net cut in spending but a major new increase in spending of $1.39 trillion. That is a fact, and it is a very troubling fact.

I would add one more thing. I see my colleague is here. I believe the President of the United States should not lull the American people into believing that he has a plan that is going to pay down our debt or get us on a sound financial course. He has two goals, it seems to me: raise taxes and raise spending. That is exactly what this plan does. It has no reform of Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid or food stamps--the largest and fastest growing entitlement programs we have--no plans to fix any of that. He refuses to talk about that, saying anybody who talks about that just does not like old people and does not care about America.

We need some leadership. We need some honesty. We need a President of the United States who will look the American people in the eye and explain to them we are living beyond our means. We do not have the money to continue to borrow 40 cents of every $1 we spend. We cannot continue on this path, as expert after expert has warned us.

I will just say, I am proud that, again, today this Senate--at least a good, solid minority--stood firm--and said: No, we are not going to waive the budget. We are going to stand by the limits on spending that were part of the Budget Control Act.

But I am not pleased how this whole process is going right now with Speaker Boehner and the President. It looks like it is not likely to lead to any changes in our debt course. Even after raising taxes $1.4 trillion, if the President had his way, we will still be on basically the same debt course. How can we allow this opportunity to get away from us? We are going to raise taxes big time yet not use any of it, in effect,

to pay down debt. The question is, will we reduce the annual deficits that will average almost $1 trillion a year for the next 10 years and get worse in the outer years?

We have to deal with that. There is no escape from that. There is no way we can get around it. Any mature person who loves this country knows we have to confront it. It cannot just be done by raising taxes. We are going to have to reduce spending in this country. Cutting spending is not going to hammer the economy. We do not have to throw people in the streets, but we need a sustained effort to reduce the growth in spending in this country. If we just do that, we would surprise ourselves that we could get on a sound course before too many years.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. President, that was very good debate. I would share the concern of Senator Johanns. I remember we backed off this dangerous trend of changing the rules when we fixed the filibuster politically in this political institution. We need to figure out a way to solve this problem. I would say, without any doubt in my own mind, the real reason we have had to filibuster is because the majority leader, to a degree unprecedented in history, is controlling and blocking the ability of the minority party to even have amendments on bills. That goes against the great heritage of the Senate and cannot be accepted. That is why we are having this problem.

I wanted to share a few thoughts this morning about the food stamp program and some of the developments that have been going on. America is a generous and compassionate Nation. We do not want and will not have people hungry in our country. We want to be able to be supportive to people in need.

But every program must meet basic standards of efficiency and productivity and wisdom and management. This program is resisting that. It is the fastest growing major program in the government. In the year 2000 we spent $20 billion on food stamps nationwide. Last year it was $80 billion. It has gone up fourfold in 10 years. That is a dramatic increase. It is increasing every year and virtually every month. The most recent report in September had one of the largest increases in the program's history--another 600,000 added to the rolls, totaling now 47.7 million. One out of every six Americans is receiving food stamps. Oddly, when we attempted to confront our debt and our spending, we had huge reductions for the Defense Department. Some other departments took big cuts. The food stamp program was set aside. President Obama and the Democratic leaders said: We will not even talk about it. No less money, no savings, no review of food stamps. It cannot be changed. It should be left alone.

Well, that is not a good plan. As the ranking member on the Budget Committee, I have begun to look at the program to see how it is we have had such great increases. The agriculture establishment says every single dollar that is spent is needed for hungry people. I offered an amendment that would have reduced spending over 10 years from $800 billion total to $789 billion, reducing spending by $11 billion based on closing a loophole, a categorical eligibility gimmick that should not be there, allowing people to receive benefits who did not qualify for them.

It was said: Oh, you want people to be hungry. It was voted down. I thought it was a very modest, reasonable change. By the way, agriculture spending in our government is different than a lot of people--Mr. President, what is the status of our time?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have another 6 minutes.

That is where we are, I think, in terms of spending on the program and the need to examine it and see how it works. The establishment says every dollar is needed, not a dime can be reduced. I certainly agree that no one should be hungry in America. But we must know that the SNAP program, the food stamp program as it is commonly known, is not the only benefit that people have.

Indeed, an average family without income in America today would receive as much as $25,000 in total benefits per year from the government if they did not have an income. They get things such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, they get SSI, housing allowance, free health care through Medicaid. They get food stamps and other benefits totaling at least $25,000.

By the way, if you took all of the means-tested welfare-type programs that are in existence in America today, there are over 80. If you divide it up by the number of households who fall below the poverty line in America, it would be $60,000 per household--$30 per hour, on average, for a 40-hour work week. That is how much it would amount to.

The median income in America is less than that. The median income-- and they pay taxes on that--is maybe $25 an hour. This would be over $30 an hour based on if we were just to divide up our welfare programs. So to say we should not examine those programs and ask ourselves can we do better is a mistake. The question I would ask is, can we improve it? Can we help more people move from dependence to independence? Is the program functioning as we would like it to function?

I have been asking questions of the Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. He provided some information that was very troubling to me. I have submitted additional information to him. Now we are not getting any more answers. They have just shut the door. The Secretary basically said: Well, you are a Member of the Senate. You are asking too many questions. I am not giving you any more information. You raise concerns when I give you information. You point out problems. I do not like that. You are not getting any more.

I would note in some of our first inquires in the examination of their program, we found they are on a determined effort to expand the number of people who get on welfare or food stamps even if they do not want to be on food stamps. One of the things that is interesting is they gave a person in western North Carolina, one of the agricultural people, an award for overcoming ``mountain pride.'' Basically what they said was this lady should be given an award because when people in the mountains who are independent and believe they can take care of themselves, thank you--without the Federal Government--she overcame that. They have a brochure telling people what to say when people say, I do not need food stamps, to get them to sign up for food stamps.

I have to say, and I am not happy about it. So now the Secretary has failed to comply with oversight requests from the Senate Budget Committee. Secretary Vilsack has missed the October deadline that we asked him to meet by nearly 2 months. My staff has been provided no update despite repeated requests, and apparently no letter is being drafted from the Department in response to our request. Just stiff you guys.

Well, last I heard he worked for the American people. So do I. And one of my jobs is to make sure the American people's money is well spent. I am asking him about how he is spending our money, and he does not want to respond.

My letter asked questions about two main issues: First, the USDA's acknowledged relationship with Mexico to place foreign nationals almost immediately on food stamps. One of the questions I asked was simply how the U.S. Department of Agriculture interprets the Federal law.

Well, we make Federal law, we pass laws. I would like to know how they are enforcing them and what standards they are using. Federal law says those likely to be reliant on welfare cannot be admitted to the United States. If they want to come to the United States, and they meet the qualifications, they get to come. But they have to show they are not going to be dependent on the government for their food, aid, and health and everything when they come.

We have lots of people who want to come to America. Most of those people probably can come and sustain themselves. Why would we be admitting

those who can't, who are going to immediately go on the government assistance programs? But this law is effectively not being enforced.

Senators Grassley, Hatch, and Roberts are ranking members on key committees, and I sent a letter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes.

So another question I asked was concerning the Department's goal to place more people on food stamps. Here is part of the question from the letter: According to USDA, ``only 72 percent of those eligible for SNAP benefits participated,'' adding, ``their communities lose out on the benefits provided by new SNAP dollars flowing into local economies.''

If USDA's enrollment goals were reached, we asked, how many people would be receiving food stamps today? We have gone up dramatically; how many more would be of benefit? I would simply ask that question.

I will ask him again on the Senate floor. How many millions more people would be on the Food Stamp Program if 100 percent of those qualified had enrolled? In 2011 USDA gave a recruitment award, as I mentioned, for overcoming ``mountain pride.'' They produced a pamphlet instructing their recruiters on how to ``overcome the word `no.' '' The USDA claims the chief obstacle to recruitment is a ``sense the benefits aren't needed.'' That is an obstacle.

USDA asserts that ``everyone wins when eligible people take advantage of benefits to which they are entitled,'' claiming that ``each $5 in new SNAP benefits generates almost twice that amount in economic activity for the community.''

Well, I guess we just ought to do it another fourfold. That would really make America prosperous.

USDA produced a Spanish-language ad in which the main character is pressured into accepting food stamps.

This is what is on the video: The lady said, ``I don't need anyone's help. My husband earns enough to take care of us.'' Her friend mocks her and replies--this is the Department of Agriculture pitch--``When are you going to learn?'' Eventually, she gives in to her friends who are pressuring her and agrees to enroll.

Is this the right approach for America? We need to work, to help people with pride, help people to assume their own independence, to be successful, take care of their own families and move them from dependence to independence. That ought to be the fundamental goal of our system. It was the goal in the reform of 1996 in the welfare reform that worked very well. More people prospered, fewer people are in poverty, and more people are taking care of themselves. It really was a success. We have been drifting back away from that.

What I sense is when you ask questions about it, you are treated as someone who doesn't care about people who are hungry, who do need our help. We want to help. All we are asking is, Can't we do it better? Can't we look back to the principles of independence, individual responsibility, and individual pride that Americans have and nurture that and use that as a way to help reduce dependence in this country? So those are the things I wanted to share.

I would just say this: The Secretary of Agriculture has the responsibility to answer.

I don't want to get in a fight with it, but, if necessary, I will use what ability I have in the Senate to insist that we get responses.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I will associate my remarks with Senator Graham and say how much I have appreciated working with Jim DeMint. He is courageous, determined, and principled. He has a vision for America, and he has advocated for it every single day. He stood, sometimes alone, to advocate for those views. He is smart, he is intelligent, and he is good. It has been my pleasure to work with him and actually to support him.

I have consistently felt his values and views were beneficial to America, and we can all disagree sometimes about how to accomplish them, but we can't just go along all the time. Sometimes we have to rock the boat, and he was willing to do that. I so much have enjoyed working with him.

The Fiscal Cliff

I wished to share a few thoughts, as ranking Member on the Budget Committee, concerning the proposal that the President has made through Secretary Geithner toward fixing the fiscal cliff that has been talked about so much. I just want to say, sadly, that the facts disprove what they have alleged their plan would do.

We have looked at the numbers. There is no real mystery about this. There are gimmicks and manipulations in the way they have expressed what they intend to accomplish that I think are beyond the pale and the American people need to know it is not accurate.

This would not be possible if we had the plan on the floor so it could be voted on in the light of day. But we all know what the plan is, the scheme is, the strategy is. It is to meet in secret and then plop down on the floor of the Senate, at the last hour, some sort of coerced agreement that all Senators--like lemmings--are supposed to vote for.

We are supposed to expect that the American people will believe the agreement is what the President says it is, but that is not, in reality, what is occurring. Secretary Geithner met with Senate and House Members last week to present a proposal, and the President made a number of claims. He says the proposal Secretary Geithner made will fix our debt. He said his proposal will make our debt ``stable and sustainable.''

Both of those claims are untrue. He also claimed his proposal contains $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases--not so.

Secretary Geithner has been around a while. He knows these numbers aren't accurate. It is disappointing to me to see him come in with so much bluster. In an interview yesterday he said: We are going to go off the cliff unless Republicans agree to what we demand, and we can't have a debt ceiling anymore. To have to debate that causes controversy. We don't want a debt ceiling anymore. Those were basically, as I heard him hubristically suggest, nonnegotiable positions. The plan called for $1.6 trillion in new taxes, twice what the President asked for in the campaign. He asked for $800 billion during the campaign. Now he wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes.

So far, even with $1.6 trillion in new taxes, there is more than $1 trillion in spending increases. Far from fixing our debt, our debt will grow over the next 10 years by nearly $9 trillion. That is almost $1 trillion a year, on average. It goes up in the last number of years.

So we remain on an unsustainable course with our debt continuing to surge out of control. We are projected, based on our debt now, to have our interest payment on the money we borrowed exceed the defense budget in just 7 years. These are facts.

Spending under that plan would increase $1 trillion above the levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act, as signed into law. We agreed to the Budget Control Act 16 months ago, in August 2011, and we raised the debt ceiling and agreed to reduce spending. We raised the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion and agreed to reduce spending $2.1 trillion. The President's plan would take out over $1.1 trillion of those spending limitations that are in current law. I repeat, spending will increase more than $1 trillion above the already projected growth in spending.

Our spending is growing. It is not decreasing. It is already projected to grow, but the President's proposal is to have it grow even faster than the law currently calls for.

I don't believe the numbers I have presented can be disputed. They can spend, and they can say things and mix up baselines and confuse the American people, but the plan he has outlined does just what I described. It is not much different from the budget the President submitted this last February. As a matter of fact, it is very similar to it. What did that budget do? It increased taxes by $1.8 trillion, and it increased spending by about $1.4 trillion.

So this is the kind of path we are being asked to take. I don't think the American people would agree to that.

There are other increases in spending other than the elimination of the $1.2 trillion sequester cuts that were agreed to last year. For instance, more than $170 billion has been in new spending, arises from more stimulus spending and as an unpaid for increase in Medicare reimbursements, the doc fix, that is going to be due and will cost $394 billion. That is almost $400 billion that is not currently funded--and will have to be funded--that they have ignored, they have left it out of the budget, which makes it look $400 billion better than it is.

We have to count that money. Together, that is almost $1.8 trillion in new spending. But the only cuts that the White House offers are $600 billion in mandatory spending reductions, basically cutting the providers of Medicare, it appears to us. In other words, the doctors and the hospitals that already took a cut to fund ObamaCare will now be asked to take another $600 billion in cuts. They tell the seniors: Don't worry. We are not cutting your Medicare. We are just going to cut providers.

But at some point, we have to understand these reductions to providers can damage their ability to provide care. A hospital has to stay open. Doctors have to make a living. A lot of them are considering retiring early because it is so difficult to operate under the Federal programs.

The bottom line is that the proposal that is out there calls for a huge tax increase, $1.8 trillion they are now saying. And this money is being gobbled up with new spending.

I try to be precise and operate from a known spending baseline; specifically, the Budget Control Act baseline we agreed to 16 months ago. The President's plan clearly contemplates this.

The $1.2 trillion in sequester cuts would be eliminated. That is more than half the cuts we agreed to last year. They would be eliminated.

There would be one reduction. The Medicare reimbursement cuts of $600 billion would reduce spending. That would still mean that net spending has gone up $600 billion. The doc fix, as I just mentioned, is another $400 billion, so it adds $1 trillion. There is about $200 billion in stimulus spending that is over $1 trillion, and we have an $800 billion tax increase. If the President got that, which is what he originally asked for, then we would end up with more debt than if we didn't have the $800 billion tax increase.

If he gets $1.6 trillion in new taxes--which will not happen, in my opinion--but if he were to get that, it would reduce the debt two- thirds of that amount, plus maybe three-fourths would be used to fund new spending and only one-fourth to deal with our current challenges.

I would ask the American people, when they read what Congress was considering--and we have heard the President advocate more taxes--did they not assume that money would be used to reduce the deficit we have so we may put our country on a sound financial path? Or did they at least not assume it could be used to save Social Security, which is already drawing money from the General Treasury, so we have

enough money to pay recipients? Or did they not think that maybe the money was going to be used to strengthen Medicare and keep that program on track so it will not go into bankruptcy?

Is any of that accomplished by the President's proposal? No. He proposes no fix to Social Security, no fix to Medicare, and no real reduction in debt. In fact, if we end up with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, we can expect the deficit to go up about $8.6 trillion instead of $9 trillion. That would be the only impact on the debt because most of the new money would be used for new spending.

So I am worried about this. I don't think the leader of our Nation, the one person elected by people all over the country, should be laying out a program to the American people that does not honestly deal with the debt threat we face, and does not honestly explain to the American people how we are on an unsustainable course, as every expert has said, and does not honestly talk with the American people about why Medicare is in trouble, why Social Security is in trouble, and what we need to do to fix them. Our President will not even talk about that, and when somebody talks about it in a serious way, they get attacked by the White House. This new budget doesn't do anything about those issues.

So I think this is not good leadership. I know Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner have pleaded with the President to talk about these long-term, systemic problems.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt are together almost 60 percent of what we spend in this country, and they are growing at three times the rate of inflation. This is unsustainable. This is what Erskine Bowles, the man the President chose to head his debt commission, has warned us about. In fact, the House proposal indicated they would accept an $800 billion tax increase as a good-faith attempt to reach out to the President, based on what Mr. Bowles had proposed. They basically call it the Erskine Bowles plan. That is what he suggested, how the tax rates wouldn't go up, but the deductions would be eliminated. You would have a simpler, more flat tax system. You would bring in $800 billion more in revenue, and they would use this revenue to help reduce our deficit. That is the kind of plan that is serious. But the President has hammered the House plan. Secretary Geithner says it is unacceptable. But it is the Erskine Bowles plan. That is what it was, and it was a serious, good-faith attempt to reach out and deal with this crisis.

I don't believe we need tax increases--any--but if we do, we have to ask ourselves, Where are we going to apply them? What are we going to do with them that puts the country on a sound path for the future so our children are not having ever larger amounts of debt accruing every month, every year that goes by?

Again, if the President's plan was accepted and the $1.6 trillion in new taxes were imposed, which I don't believe will happen, we would have virtually no reduction in the total debt accruing over 10 years. That does not change the debt course of America. It does not deal with the danger that exists. The spending path we are on is in the red zone. The tachometer spending needle is over in the red zone.

Mr. Bowles told us at our Budget Committee hearing 2 years ago that we are facing the most predictable debt crisis in our country's history. He said we have to get off this unsustainable path. So the House has basically taken his suggestions and worked with them.

I understand that earlier today there was a discussion about raising the debt ceiling. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to regulate the debt of America, and we have to pass legislation to raise the amount--the ceiling or the limit--on how much we can borrow. We are at $16 trillion-plus now, and we are about to reach the debt limit again early next year. The President doesn't want to have to deal with that again because last time we came up against the debt ceiling-- August a year ago--the President had to reduce spending. It is the only time we have actually done anything. We reduced spending by $2.1 trillion out of what was projected to be $47 trillion in total spending.

So August a year ago, the country was on track to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years. Once the agreement was reached and $2.1 trillion was saved, we were on a course to spend $45 trillion instead of $47 trillion. Now, America is not going to sink into the ocean if we reduce spending that much. It is still an increase--a very substantial increase. Debt would have accrued over the next decade. Instead of $11 trillion, it would have been $9 trillion. So we go from $16 trillion, to $25 trillion, to $26 trillion in new debt to the country. That is all that limit did. I believed it did not go nearly far enough, and that was a concern of mine, but the agreement was at least a step. The President's plan eliminates the sequester and does not pay for it with cuts elsewhere. So it actually increases spending because it backs off the agreement we reached just last year.

Madam President, I believe the American people have a right to be unhappy with us. And it absolutely is not true that if we take the current law baseline, the President's proposal cuts spending $2.50 for every $1 of tax increase. In fact, there is no spending reduction, really. There are only spending increases. No net reductions properly accounted for occur in the plan Secretary Geithner laid out, and that is true with the President's budget too. The budget the President submitted last year is very similar to this current proposal. It increases spending, it doesn't reduce spending.

So we need to know that we are being asked to permanently raise tax rates in America and permanently use that money on new spending programs, leaving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Defense Department on the same dangerous course they are on today. I think we can do better.

I hope the American people will look at these numbers, maybe call the White House, call their Members of Congress, and say: Look, if you have to raise taxes--and I think most Americans don't think we need to--be sure you use this money wisely. Don't start new programs when we are going broke now. Don't start new programs when we don't have money to fund Social Security, don't have money to fund Medicare, don't have money to fund Medicaid. Don't start new spending programs when we don't have the money to take care of the ones we have.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and 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 that I be notified after 7 minutes.

Mr. President, when the Senate gives its advice and consent to a treaty, it becomes the ``supreme law of the land'' on par with Federal statutes. This is Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It is in our Constitution. That is why we must take great care in ratifying treaties and doing so only if it advances U.S. interests at home or abroad.

The overwhelming majority of constituent comments my office has received have been in opposition to the convention--approximately 1,000 letters in opposition; 40 letters or so in support.

Moreover, I, along with 36 other Senators, joined a letter to the Senate leadership requesting that no treaties be brought to the floor during the lameduck session.

A treaty is a powerful document, equal to or above statutory law. Historically, treaties are to regulate the relationship between sovereign nations. They do things like settle border disputes and create trade relations between those two nations. While treaties on occasion have blurred the line between international relations, the line, the principle still remains fundamentally intact.

This Nation has never ratified a treaty of which the entire focus is to empower an international agency--here, the United Nations, an organization that truly is proving to be dysfunctional and often hostile to the most legitimate interests of the United States--to monitor the internal policies of the United States. This is particularly curious in that the United States has the world's best record on disability issues.

Se we are told, let's ratify the treaty because we already meet, at least today, all the requirements of the treaty. This will set an example. In truth, we have already set an example. We lead the world.

This treaty, however, has misdirected the focus of the United States and the world community away from nations who do little or nothing for the disabled and to direct blame first on this Nation.

Of course, the United States has a most magnificent system of law. It is the foundation of our liberty, our prosperity, and our happiness. Thus, if we were to ratify this treaty, we can be sure that international hypocrites will soon demand that the United States do this or that. All the while, their countries will have been in full violation of virtually every provision of the treaty. Many other mischievous actions will certainly arise to bedevil our country, and we will have hypocritical meddlers complicating our internal disability efforts, as well as our internal social and health policies. I do not think this is necessary.

Now, I agree that the United States and the world can do more to advance the cause of the disabled. I truly do. I recently visited the very fine Alabama School for the Deaf and Blind. I personally saw how inexpensive computers can transform the daily lives of the disabled. Deaf and blind can move from being disconnected to connected, from unemployed to highly productive. It was such a moving and positive experience to see what can be done today with the technology this world has.

When one visits our magnificent military hospital at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, one can see the devices that are used there on a regular basis to make the lives of those who have been injured better. The whole world will benefit if more of this technology is made available.

The right way to advance assistance for the disabled worldwide is to be active internationally, to be on the front

lines promoting these good techniques and policies, and to use more of our existing foreign aid for this purpose rather than wasting it, as we too often do, on corrupt governments that take it and do little for their people. I believe the State Department should strengthen its outreach in this important area. I have even drafted a law that would require them to establish such a department within their agency. As we spend billions yearly on aid, surely we can be more effective in ensuring that the equipment, devices and treatments that are life transfiguring are given more emphasis by our government.

We ought to raise the level of priority we give to the disabled.

Yes, I acknowledge that such expenditures are not purely a part of our Nation's national security policy, but America has always responded to the call to be a force for good in the world.

I just left a meeting 15 minutes ago with United Methodists from the North Alabama Conference who have a project to fight AIDS, HIV, and malaria in Africa. This is part of the American heritage, and we do this every day, and it should be done.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

This is our heritage, a heritage that has proven to be a blessing to the world. We do not want to walk away from that.

Another part of our heritage is the rule of law--that clear and strong understanding of the unique quality of national sovereignty. We are honest people. We are productive people. We are lawful people. We know that we will be able to be more prosperous and thus able to help others if we protect our economy from reckless, dangerous spending and the authority of our legal system from erosion. Thus, I conclude this treaty is unnecessary and, in fact, dangerous for our Nation.

So let's do more for the disabled worldwide. I will be supportive of that. But let's do it without enmeshing our Nation into another binding international organization that will cause more grief than benefit.

I will conclude with one more thing.

I am coming to the view that we as a nation need to be more legally aware of the dangers of signing agreements with foreign nations that regulate internal affairs, even if we are not giving away direct powers over the United States. I do not see that is necessary. I think that is a bad step. I am opposed to that. I think that in the long run, we will have difficulties.

I thank the Presiding Officer, yield the floor, and reserve the remainder of our time for my colleagues who I know want to speak on this matter.

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 call up amendment No. 3009, as modified, and ask for its consideration.

I believe it is at the desk.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3009 and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, I would like just like to say that this amendment arose after Senator Webb expressed concerns at one of our Armed Services Committee hearing fundamentally that Iraq and Afghanistan are voting in their parliaments on the force of status agreements, and we are not even seeing the agreement here, so I appreciate his leadership and am glad to work with him on this piece of legislation. I think his work moves us in the right direction.

We will talk with Chairman Levin to see where we are.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I couldn't miss the opportunity to express our appreciation for the services of Senator Webb. As all of us know, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded, he is a Vietnam veteran, one of the most highly decorated veterans in the entire war, a combat leader of men in fierce combat. He served the country in a number of different ways and in this Senate. Actually his book, Fields of Fire, remains the premier novel on the Vietnam War and is the most studied novel in colleges to this day about the war in Vietnam.

So, at any rate, I just wanted to share those remarks while we had a minute here and express my appreciation to Senator Webb for his service to the country and to the Senate.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, 15 months ago in August, the debt ceiling of the United States was reached; that is, that we had borrowed all of the money we could lawfully borrow. A big discussion occurred and a number of things came out of it.

Finally, it was agreed to raise the debt ceiling so the government could continue to borrow. Almost 40 cents of every dollar we spend now is borrowed. It is unbelievable, but it is true. We also agreed that over 10 years, we would reduce spending by $2.1 trillion. That is a lot of money, but compared to what we are spending, it is not so much.

For example, we were expected to spend, over the next 10 years, $47 trillion over the--basically, $37 trillion we would spend now if we maintain the current level, and we agreed to reduce it from 47 to 45. Spending over 10 years would grow by $8 trillion instead of $10 trillion, not something that would destroy the Republic, but it was a step of noticeable weight to change the debt course of America. We still remain, after that agreement, totally on an unsustainable debt course. We have more work to do.

But the point I want to make is it passed both Houses of Congress, it had the support of both leaders and the President of the United States. It didn't freeze spending in a lot of things, it didn't cut spending in a lot of things, but it did reduce the growth of spending and give us some real teeth through that on certain accounts--not all accounts.

Well, today was the third vote in recent weeks in which this Senate said: We will abide by and adhere to the agreement we reached. We will not spend more than we agreed to spend just August a year ago. This is a 10-year agreement. We promised to stay within those limits for 10 years. Yet within 15 months, a little over a year, we have now had the fifth bill on the floor of the Senate that violated that agreement. And this is the third time the Members of the Senate said: No, we are not going to keep violating that agreement.

This survivor benefit program reform is something I have favored. I worked with Senator Nelson years ago. I was a cosponsor with him of the legislation, and we have tried a lot of ways to do it. But we agreed to spending limitations. The amendment Senator Nelson offered today had a great goal, it is something I think we can figure a way to advance for sure, but there was no reduction of spending and no pay-for for this amendment. There just wasn't. At the last moment he walks in with $7 billion--almost $7 billion--in new spending, none of which was paid for, in blatant, direct, total violation of the agreement we reached in August a year ago.

We had Members, Republican Members--and I appreciate Senator Carper breaking ranks and voting to uphold the budget--who wanted to vote for this and felt bad they were not able to allow the amendment to advance, but it violates the budget. So I was proud

of that. I think it is the right thing for America.

We can do this. I believe our message is being sent. We brought up a popular bill, the Sportsmen's Act, and I was for that, but it wasn't paid for or it spent more money than we agreed to in the Budget Control Act. So this amendment would have spent more money--$7 billion more than we agreed to. We blocked the Sportsmen's Act and it was $140 million more than we agreed to. The Senate said no, even though many of us liked what was in that bill. This was $7 billion above what we agreed to, and even with the good cause we said we should adhere to the limits we have.

If we have new priorities that we want to fund, can't we find wasteful spending somewhere in our government? One of the dysfunctions we have, one of the reasons it is so hard to get something such as that accomplished and fund a new spending program without borrowing the money, just increasing the debt, is everybody is jealous of their account. How silly is that. We should all be focusing on the national interest. So when we say we are going to reduce this program over here and we are going to pay for the benefits for widows, people automatically say: No, you can't take my money. But it is all the taxpayers' money, isn't it? It is not this Senator's money or this committee's money, it is not this program's money. It is all the taxpayers' money.

We have been in denial. We think business as usual is going to continue, but this country has never, ever, ever been in a more systemic, dangerous position with regard to our finances. Never. We have had expert testimony on that. So we have to be honest about it. We have to do the right thing. We can't have a Senator waltz in, even with something we would wish to support, and ask us to vote for it when it adds $7 billion above the amount we agreed to spend. I wanted to say that because it is a troubling situation for us.

One more thing. The President of the United States is the one person who speaks for America. He is now pushing and advancing an agenda that seems to me to raise taxes. But will it reduce spending? No. It seems the new taxes are to fund new spending. Well, we don't have the numbers, so I am going to be asking him to see the numbers. I am the ranking member on the Budget Committee. I want to see how much new spending they have and how much new taxes they have, and if it is like what we have been seeing, there is a lot of flimflam. We had a budget projection that was voted down 100 percent, not a single vote. The budget he sent out earlier this year increased taxes $1.8 trillion but increased spending $1.4. So it didn't pay down the debt.

I hope the President will look the American people in the eye and tell them we are on an unsustainable course. I have not heard him say that. Why won't he say that? His own debt commissioner, Erskine Bowles, said we face the most predictable debt crisis in our Nation's history. Why won't the President say we can't continue on this path and we have to change? Why won't he say we need to tighten our belt across the government? This is one of the problems we have at the end of this year.

I wanted to say to my friends who may have seen this differently that those people who voted a few minutes ago to uphold the budget, not to waive the Budget Act but to stay with the budget agreement we signed, I believe were doing what they truly felt was in the best interest of America. I don't think they should be in any way accused of being hard- hearted. It is time for us to at least agree to stand by the numbers we have agreed to.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Kyl's comments, and I share them. We are going to miss the most knowledgeable fiscal tax expert in the Senate, and his long career includes time on the Finance Committee. I thank Senator Kyl.

I want to express some reservations about the negotiations that have been going on, as I understand it from reading the paper, involving the fiscal cliff.

Over the last 2 years, Congress and the President have held an endless series of negotiations. There have been Gangs of 6 and 8, a supercommittee of 12, talks at the Blair House and the White House. But the only thing these secret talks have produced is a government that skips from one crisis to the next. Everything has been tried but open production of a 10-year plan from this Senate that is required by law, that would allow us to openly debate and discuss concretely the financial challenges we face today.

All of this secrecy allows the President to position himself as being in favor of a balanced plan--which is what he says: I favor a balanced plan--while the only comprehensive proposal, to my knowledge, he has actually laid out was in January or February of this year when he laid out his budget. Of course, it was voted down unanimously. In both the House and the Senate not a single person voted for it. But he did lay out a financial plan for the country. He put it on paper.

Basically, it increases taxes to fuel more spending. That is what the plan did. It increased taxes $1.8 trillion and increased spending $1.4 trillion over the agreement we just reached under the Budget Control Act in August, a year ago.

So we reached agreement on 10 years of spending limits in August, a year ago. Then January, 6 months later, he proposes a budget that would increase taxes $1.8 trillion and spending that would increase another $1.4 trillion over that BCA baseline: tax and spend. Not taxes to reduce deficits but taxes to fund new spending. That is why the budget puts us on track to have $25 trillion in total debt at the end of 10 years--another almost $10 trillion in debt added to the current debt level.

Insofar as I can see, that tax-and-spend policy remains his goal today. The White House isn't planning to raise taxes to reduce the deficit. It raises taxes, under their plan, to expand government. That is not acceptable. I don't believe Congress will accept such a deal if that is what is going on in these secret negotiations.

President Obama campaigned on tax increases just on the wealthy, just on raising their rates, just only $800 billion in tax increases. But now the White House is demanding $1.6 trillion in tax increases. Don't the American people have a right to see where those taxes fall, who they will impact, and how much they are?

Shouldn't the President lay out his plan? He is the President of the United States and the only person who represents everybody in the country. Will that remain a secret? Will it just be revealed to us on the eve of Christmas or the eve of the new calendar year? We will be asked to vote for or to ratify like lemmings, I suppose.

The White House has repeatedly asserted they believe in $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes, which does not reflect sufficient spending cuts. But if the White House now wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes, where are the $4 trillion in spending cuts? Have those been laid out? Do we know what they would be? And this is over 10 years. These spending cuts would be very achievable if we put our minds to it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to have the full 10 minutes.

I thank my colleagues for their courtesy.

In fact, the President has given speeches calling for more spending. On Tuesday, he gave a speech in which he said he wants to use the tax hikes to ``invest in training, education, science, and research.''

When you are in a deep hole and you are borrowing almost 40 cents of every dollar you spend, shouldn't you constrain yourself and not start new programs? Or if you start a new, needed program, shouldn't you reduce some less valuable program to pay for it instead of just taxing to create more programs?

Not once in the speech did he discuss entitlements. That is the largest item in our government, entitlements. Not once did the President of the United States discuss with the American people the problem that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are on an unsustainable path and are at great risk. Shouldn't the President honestly talk to the American people about that?

He didn't discuss our $16 trillion debt and how the Debt Commission he appointed indicates that we are on an unsustainable path, heading to a fiscal crisis. He did not discuss the economic catastrophe that could occur if we don't get off this unsustainable path.

The President should lead on these things. I don't think this is a partisan complaint. I am saying the President of the United States should be discussing with the American people the great danger of our time: the debt.

The President will go out to the press and use the buzz words that say he has a balanced plan or a responsible path to deficit reduction. But where are the spending reductions? What is the plan?

It seems to me the plan is to talk in general, to meet in secret day after day, week after week, the deadlines getting closer, the fiscal cliff getting closer. Then, under threat of panic, force through some deal that maintains the status quo: more taxes, more spending, more debt. And it will be presented to the Senate in a way that, if it is not adopted immediately, the country will be in great fiscal danger. This process needs to be taken out of the shadows. We need public debate, and then people would know the facts that are now being hidden from us, hidden from Members of Congress. We don't know what is going on. The latest article in Politico today said the deal--the so- called deal has been negotiated by the Speaker of the House and the President. Not even Harry Reid is in the meetings, apparently-- certainly not the Members of the Senate or the Members of the House of Representatives.

If we had a public debate, people would discover that according to the CBO, mandatory spending is going to increase nearly 90 percent over the next 10 years. To get the country under control requires some real tough focus, but it does not mean we are going to have to cut spending dramatically, just reduce the growth of spending. Expenses on welfare are particularly interesting. Mandatory spending, that is, the entitlement programs of all kinds, is set to automatically increase 90 percent over the next decade. That is over half of our budget. We already spend $2.3 trillion on mandatory costs today in our budget-- this year we will spend 2.3 trillion--but we will spend $4.12 trillion in the 10th year from now. Those are the projected growth patterns we are on. This is a huge increase, and we do not have the money.

People would also learn from public debate that welfare costs are now the single largest item in the budget, exceeding Medicare--larger than Medicare, larger than Social Security, larger than the defense budget. We spend enough on these poverty programs to send every household beneath the poverty line in America a check for $60,000, each family. That is how much we are spending. The President's plan apparently would not deal with that at all. Indeed, the Budget Control Act of 15 months ago that was passed explicitly failed to address some of the biggest items in that budget.

I do not see how we can support a plan that does not at least begin to reform these programs and improve their operation. Is this going on in the secret talks? Are they talking about it or, like the Budget Control Act, is this off-

limits, not to be discussed? Will welfare reform be a part of the framework of the settlement that will be dropped on the Senate? We do not know.

Meanwhile, the President demands more taxes and refuses to do anything about waste, really. I have not seen any strong management leadership from this White House that gives me confidence that we should send more money. There are lavish conferences, duplicative programs, billions in refundable tax credits being mailed every year to illegal aliens or children not even in the United States--billions from their own department, the reports tell us. No one is managing this government effectively. Why should the American people send one more dime in taxes to Washington when we will not reform and manage the money we are already getting from them? The American people should not send more money to this dysfunctional government. They should insist that we fix what is going on here first.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks. I ask for 1 additional minute to wrap up.

I thank my colleagues.

I would say I am concerned about the nature of these secret talks, the fact that the Senate is really not participating. From the reports, it is only the Speaker and the President of the United States discussing it, and that appears to be--from what I picked up--to be true. Apparently, the majority leader is not intimately involved, the chairman of the Budget Committee is not involved, and the chairman of the Finance Committee is not involved. These are Democratic leaders in the Senate, certainly not Republican leaders in the Senate.

The Senate is a great institution. We ought to be engaged, and the engagement of the Senate allows the American people to know what is happening. They are entitled to that. I really believe we can do better. We must do better.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I just to want follow up on the remarks of my colleagues Senator Kyl and Senator Ayotte.

Last year, I asked for and obtained language in the Defense bill that would

require the Defense Department to report on the effectiveness and need and ramifications of a hedging strategy for the United States, and that was due within 75 days of the bill being passed. My understanding is the Defense Department produced that analysis and they sent it to the White House as early as last spring and it has not been produced.

So now we have the House having passed language that actually funds moving forward with a hedging strategy on an American-based system to give us a layered defense, which I think is probably necessary but because we have not gotten a report from the Defense Department it is hard to know. I would first say it is not acceptable that we have not received that report. It has gone on too long. I guess I and Congress have been too reticent in insisting that it be produced.

I would say to the Defense Department and the administration, we expect that report to be produced. I don't want to cause trouble in your world, but it has been made, it has been sent forward, and it is time to have it come to the people's representatives who have to make decisions about how we are going to defend America. I will be using the various rights I have as a Senator to move that forward.

I wish to quote from a story in today's Washington Times, referring to a statement made by Mr. Fereidoun Abbasi, who is Iran's nuclear chief. The article states: ``Iran will step up its uranium enrichment program by sharply increasing the number of centrifuges used to make nuclear fuel.''

There are some people still saying we don't know if Iran wants to go forward with a nuclear weapon. How could this possibly be? They have been subjected to the most rigorous sanctions that are damaging their economy. Yet in today's paper their nuclear chief says they are accelerating their plans to go forward. There is no doubt about what they are doing. I wish it weren't so. I truly wish it weren't so. I had hoped they would change their mind. Maybe they will change their mind, but it is false to say they haven't made up their mind and they are not going forward to build a nuclear weapon. That is so plainly obvious I don't know how anybody could ever suggest otherwise. The only question is, Can we somehow bring to bear enough pressure on them to get them to change their mind? There is a long article about that in today's paper.

I was pleased Chairman Levin and both Democratic and Republican members of the Armed Services Committee produced a unanimous bill. Senator McCain, Senator Levin, both fine, wonderful leaders of our committee, and every member all signed off on the legislation. I think that speaks well for our committee. They also approved this language dealing with the failure of the Department to produce the hedging report--and it has a number of fact-finding points in it which I will share with my colleagues:

The Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, has

testified to Congress that . . . ``Iran already has the

largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East,

and it is expanding the scale, reach, and sophistication of

its ballistic missile forces, many of which are inherently

capable of carrying a nuclear payload.''

That is President Obama's National Intelligence Director, and he is the man to make the final opinion on that for the President. Let me quote additional language from the committee:

The 2012 Annual Report to Congress on the Military Power of

Iran by the Department of Defense states that, in addition to

increasing its missile inventories, ``Iran has boosted the

lethality and effectiveness of its existing missile systems

with accuracy improvements and new submissions payloads.''

Also in the report:

North Korea warned the United States in October 2012 that

the United States mainland is within reach of its missiles.

I will wrap up, since I can't talk much longer anyway. We have to recognize the grim fact there are very dangerous countries with nuclear weapons--North Korea--or are rapidly developing them--Iran--capable of putting them on missiles and that have missile systems already. So North Korea has a missile system they believe can reach the United States right now. We need to be sure our defense system is sufficient. I wish it weren't so, but that is the way it is. I think the Defense Department understands this.

I think the administration says it does, and we are doing some good things to be prepared for that. However, we have to confront this question of an east coast site, and we need this report. I believe we are going to need additional layered defenses, and we might as well prepare to do it. In the scheme of the entire investment in our national defense, it won't be the kind of expenditure that will break the defense budget. It is something we can work into our defense budgets.

I thank Senators Ayotte and Kyl for their comments.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, that was a good debate. Senator Feinstein

is always gracious and alert and smart in her arguments.

I want to say one thing that is not in doubt. Some of my colleagues-- I think Senator Paul and others--have suggested that somehow the law of the United States has been changed in recent years, and we need the Feinstein amendment to fix it and restore the constitutional rights we are all entitled to.

What I want to say, without any doubt and I think any fear of real contradiction, is this amendment alters the history of the United States, alters the long-term understanding of the rules of war, and places American citizens in a position where they cannot be treated effectively as an enemy of the state and detained, and actually be in a position to be released to continue their war against the United States. I think that is a bad policy.

I agree with Senators Levin, Ayotte, and others who share their view. I am not quite able to understand--and I am not sure Senator Feinstein does--that this therefore establishes through understandings of Hamdi and the Supreme Court decision that therefore we can vote for it. I don't think it is the right step. I don't think we should alter the historical position of the United States that those who are at war with the United States are not treated as criminals. Southerners who were captured by Lincoln weren't released. When Washington dealt with the Whiskey Rebellion, he sent out Alexander Hamilton. They weren't given Miranda rights. They went out there to stop the rebellion. They were citizens. That is the way I feel about it.

Amendment No. 3009

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business and call up amendment No. 3009.

I wish to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3009. I understand it would not be voted on tonight, but I wish to get it pending.

I would be glad to, if the chairman thinks it won't be a problem calling it up at a later date.

It has been conveyed to the Senator's staff.

Mr. President, I withdraw the offer of calling up that amendment and my request to set aside the pending amendment, but I would share some thoughts about it.

The amendment deals with the ability of the Congress of the United States to review any bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan.

Congress was not consulted regarding the framework or the substance of the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that was signed on May 1, 2012. This agreement commits the United States to establishing a long-term bilateral security agreement with Afghanistan. In the past, Congress has been consulted and has sometimes provided its advice and consent to the ratification of these type agreements.

The strategic partnership agreement, already signed by President Obama, is a legally binding agreement that committed the United States to various policies including those related to the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. It is broad and vague, and any further agreements entered into by the President that are based upon it should be reviewed by the appropriate congressional committees.

The President and the Secretary of Defense have stated that the United States continues to fight in Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaida. While the authorization of military force authorizes the President to use any means necessary to prevent any acts of terrorism against the United States, his authority to enter into bilateral security agreements with Afghanistan should be looked at and reviewed at least by Congress.

The bilateral security agreement will supersede not only the strategic partnership agreement--so this will be the bilateral security agreement--but additional memoranda of understanding related to special operations in Afghanistan and detainee transfers will be part of this agreement. The issues addressed in the forthcoming bilateral security agreement are too important not to require congressional review.

The amendment would require the President to submit any proposed bilateral security agreement to the appropriate congressional committees 30 days before entering into the agreement. This is not unreasonable. Congress is exercising its role of oversight before the President makes long-term commitments that have significant ramifications from the size of forces that we commit to the legal authority of our commanders. So this will be a final agreement that will impact quite significantly the commitment--financially, militarily, and in blood--the human support of our members.

There is a history behind these SOFA agreements. The Senate approved the NATO Status of Forces Agreement. We actually voted on it and approved it in advance. A formal treaty was used as an underlying source of authority for a Status of Forces Agreement on seven different occasions: Australia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines. Congress has voted and approved Status of Forces Agreements three additional times: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau.

I hope Senator Webb is able to come over tonight. He has raised his concerns about this, and expressed concern in the Armed Services Committee that the Afghani and the Iraqi Parliaments vote on the Status of Forces Agreement, but our Congress is not voting on the Status of Forces Agreement. Senator Webb is a cosponsor of this amendment. And just to have that agreement, the full and complete agreement that commits the United States to be fully reported to the Congress of the United States I don't think is too much to ask. Right now, we don't have any indication that would happen, and there is some opposition to it. But why would that be a problem? Why would the administration not want Congress to know what our commitments are and what we would be expected to support?

I believe it is a good amendment. Hopefully we can get it moved forward and maybe accepted; but, if not, by vote. I think we could handle it. I don't think it should cause the objection that some see in it. This does not require that the Congress have a right to vote to reject the amendment or approve the amendment. It simply says the agreement that is entered into, the SOFA, has to be produced promptly to the Congress. I think that is a reasonable position, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask to call up amendments Nos. 3007, 3008, 3009, 3010, and 3013.

And No. 3011.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the athletic director for the University of Alabama, Mal Moore.

Coach Moore was born in Dozier, AL in 1939. He was recruited and awarded an athletic scholarship by the legendary coach Paul ``Bear'' Bryant. He played for the Crimson Tide from 1958-1962, including on the undefeated 1961 national championship squad--ranked #1 by the Associated Press and considered by many to be one of the best ever. He graduated from the University of Alabama in 1963, and began his coaching career as an assistant at Montana State.

Having displayed leadership that clearly impressed Coach Bryant, Coach Moore was hired away from Montana State to serve as a graduate assistant at his alma mater, where he received his master's degree. From there he embarked on a highly successful 31 year coaching career, which included stints at Notre Dame, the NFL and for national championship teams under both Coach Bryant and Coach Gene Stallings at Alabama. In 1999, he was named the Crimson Tide's athletics director, a position he still holds.

Coach Mal Moore is a champion. He has been a part of nine national championships--1961, 1964, 1965, 1973, 1978, 1979, 1992, 2009 and 2011--with the first coming as a player, the next six during his coaching career and the most recent two during his time as athletics director. During his tenure as athletic director, Alabama has gone on to win seven national championships in four different sports: football in 2009 and 2011; gymnastics under Coach Sarah Patterson in 2002, 2011 and 2012; women's golf in 2012 and women's softball in 2012.

In addition to the success the university has seen on the fields, courses and arenas under Coach Mal Moore, he has transformed the University of Alabama's athletics program, improving the University for all students and student-athletes. Coach Moore has raised more than $200 million for capital improvements to make the Capstone's facilities among the best in the Nation; improving Bryant-Denny Stadium, Coleman Coliseum, John and Ann Rhoads Softball Stadium as well as the soccer and tennis stadiums. His efforts to improve student-athlete academics have led the Crimson Tide to high graduation rates and have made Alabama athletes among the most competitive academically.

Coach Moore's sizable contributions to University of Alabama athletics and academics have been noticed and recognized by the University of Alabama, the State of Alabama and nationally. In 2007, the Alabama football building was renamed the Mal M. Moore Athletic Facility. The Alabama Sports Hall of Fame named Coach Moore the Distinguished Alabama Sportsman in 2007 for his efforts as athletics director, and inducted him into the Hall of Fame in 2011. Recently, the National Football Foundation recognized Coach Moore with the John L. Toner Award, which is presented annually by the foundation to an athletic director who has demonstrated superior administrative abilities and shown outstanding dedication to college athletics and particularly college football.

Coach Mal Moore has been part of the University of Alabama and Crimson Tide football as a student-athlete, coach and administrator for more than 50 years. He has left an indelible mark at the Capstone, and his leadership will be felt by Alabama students and staff for generations to come.

It's a pleasure and honor for me to recognize a great leader, a great athletic director and a great man from the heartland of my State of Alabama. I look forward to enjoying the fruits of his labors for years to come. Roll Tide!

Mr. President, I wish to speak about the budget portion of this bill. I share Senator Warner's support for the bill. I believe fundamentally it is a good series of policy initiatives that will help sportsmen in the long run. However, I am the ranking member of the Budget Committee and this bill violates the deemed spending levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act. Senator Warner is a member of the Budget Committee. Senator Warner is a member of the Gang of Six that is working so hard to develop a plan that we are supposed to trust will be executed if their plan were to be effected. It doesn't look as if they are making a lot of progress, but who knows? I salute their effort.

The question is, if we lay out a plan to address our fiscal issues, will we adhere to it? Will we follow it? So I am a little bit taken aback that my colleagues seem oblivious to the idea and the concern that, plainly, the Sportsmen's Act legislation violates the Budget Act. The staff of Senator Kent Conrad--our Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee, who is retiring--has concluded and certified that it violates the budget because it spends more money than we agreed to spend on this item 15 months ago when the Budget Control Act was passed in order to raise the debt ceiling in America.

I wish to tell my colleagues that I worry about things around here and about what kinds of agreements may be reached in the middle of the night--Christmas Eve, December 31st--to fix the fiscal cliff. We will hear: Don't worry, we have taken care of it. That is what they said when they passed the Budget Control Act August a year ago. I didn't feel good about it then, although it made some progress and it did have some limits on spending in various areas. So we did pass the Budget Control Act, and this will be the fourth time in 15 months we have had a bill on the floor that violates it.

Senator Durbin earlier talked about the Simpson-Bowles Commission on which he served. Forty Percent of the revenue they raised was taxes. They said it was about 3-to-1 spending cuts to revenue increases when they were telling us about it. As I recall, they said it was 3-to-1 in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases. But my Budget Committee staff and I looked at it, and I think it is closer to 1-to-1: $1 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.

It was a tax-and-spend bill, really. I wish it were better. It wasn't as good as people suggested. At some point before the election President Obama suggested we should have $1 in tax increases for every $4 in spending cuts. Now we see that Simpson-Bowles proposed a ration of almost 1-to-1: $1 in tax increases for every $1 in spending cuts.

I am going to put out a statement today, but I wanted to correct something Senator Reid said and Senator Durbin said Sunday on the talk interview programs. Senator Durbin said Social Security does not add 1 penny to the debt--not a penny. I think that is pretty close to a direct quote. But that is not correct. Social Security is already in a situation where the amount of revenue from people's withholding is less than the amount of money being paid out to the recipients. We have now spent $27 billion more than we have collected in payroll taxes in the last 2 years. So where does the money come from? It is borrowed by the United States Treasury to pay for Social Security spending. Why? Because the U.S. Treasury borrowed the money. They took the surpluses that had been in existence until 2 years ago and spent them. But the Social Security trustees asked for the money they loaned the Treasury, in order to pay our retirees. They have debt instruments to establish the debt that they loaned to the Treasury. They didn't give it to the Treasury. It was the money of the Social Security recipients. That is whose money it was. So it was loaned to the government, their debt instruments showing the debt, and the Treasury pays the interest to the Social Security trustees. Now, for the first time, instead of having a surplus, which the Treasury can spend and buy votes with, we have a deficit, and boy, it is just beginning. It is already on a path to surge out of control and threaten the future of Social Security. How does the

government pay the money it owes to Social Security? It has already spent the money it collected in past years. It is as if we borrowed the money from the bank, we spent it, and the bank says I want to be paid back.

What happens? Well, the Federal Government borrows that money on the world market, through the sale of Treasury bills, and then they get that money and they pay Social Security. It is just beginning. It is already in deficit. It has added not 1 penny--it has already added $27 billion to the public debt of the United States of America.

The Sportsmen's bill is legislation I strongly support. It came out of committee and I supported it, but it does violate the Budget Act. It is quite clear that it does. We can fix it easily. If we can fix it easily, we should fix it easily. Senator Conrad has certified that it violates the budget. Senator Reid has brought it to the floor under rule XIV, bypassing normal Committee procedures. The bill violates the spending limits we agreed to in August a year ago.

The BCA limited spending in various accounts as part of an agreement to raise the debt limit. We reached a limit on how much we could borrow, and the President and others wanted to keep borrowing and keep spending. So debt in America continues to surge out of control. But the Republican leaders at the time said: No, until you agree to cut spending, we are not going to raise the debt limit, Mr. President. Just like the kid with the credit card, you don't get to keep spending unless we know you have limited some spending, at least. So that is what happened. The President and the congressional Democrats resisted that. They attacked Republicans as wanting to cut spending and throw the country into the abyss, but they--with no choice, really--finally agreed to spending reductions of $2.1 trillion over 10 years. Those reductions were based on 2011 spending levels. Flat spending in 2011 would have totaled about $37 trillion over 10 years. But the baseline for spending has natural growth in it and always has, as calculated by the Congressional Budget Office. CBO said that under current law, spending would be expected to increase to over $47 trillion over 10 years--$10 trillion or $11 trillion more. So this agreement would simply have reduced the amount of debt that could be added to the government from $10 trillion to $8 trillion over the next 10 years. It would reduce spending--some said it was horrible--it would reduce spending from $47 trillion to $45 trillion. Remember, we are spending about $37 trillion now. The American people were assured that this solemn agreement was a good step and Congress would follow what they agreed to and put into law. So another thing is that Congress cannot continue to breach even the modest spending levels we agreed to. We cannot breach those levels. It is a sick pattern and makes a mockery of law and responsible governing.

Since the Budget Control Act agreement 15 months ago, this is the fourth spending bill that violates the law. How? Always Congress wants to spend more money--money we don't have. Remember, these four instances I have cited don't include the 13 appropriations bills because Senator Reid, for the first time in history--the first time in the history of the Senate, we believe--did not pass a single appropriations bill on time. Every one of them was placed in one continuing resolution and funded forward for 6 months. So we didn't bring those appropriations bills up and we didn't have votes on them. Who knows how many more budget violations would have occurred in that. So the bills we are talking about are bills such as the Sportsmen's bill that is before us now.

I will object to the legislation because it violates the 10-year spending limits passed into law 15 months ago. But, of course, that does not end the matter. Senator Reid--and I am sure he will, or his designee--will simply ask the Senate to override the law. They will make a motion to waive the statutory spending limits and, poof, if 60 Senators agree, we waive it and spend the extra money. No problem, except the Budget Act will be violated once again.

So at a time of unprecedented spending, unsustainable debt, and low public confidence in Congress, should we not adhere to even the smallest spending limits that have been enacted? Should we again violate the Budget Control Act for a mere $14 million a year--a mere $14 million a year--when this could easily be fixed? I say ``a mere $14 million'' because we deal with billions of dollars on a routine basis around here. So $14 million is a lot of money, but compared to what we spend and the ability we have to find savings in this vast government, it is not a lot of money.

And shouldn't the President, who negotiated and signed into law the Budget Control Act, object to his Democratic leaders' violating the spending limits he agreed to and negotiated last summer a year ago? Shouldn't he make it clear that he will veto any bill that violates the statutory limits we agreed to? Of course, he has not done so on this bill or any of the other four previous bills that would have violated those spending limits.

The words in the Budget Control Act, I have to say, appear, in his mind, to be words he never agreed to in his heart. Maybe he agreed to them on paper, maybe he signed the paper, but in his heart he never wanted to sign that agreement, so it is no problem for him to waltz in here and agree to spend more than he agreed to last summer. He is postmodern, as you know. Words are just a momentary thing. They can be reinterpreted a little later to better match what we meant to say my heart of hearts. This is why this country is in financial trouble, in my opinion.

Amendments my staff and I have tried to suggest that would fix this problem are being rejected, and the good groups such as Ducks Unlimited and other groups say: No; we don't want any changes. We say: Let's see if we can't get the money for the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund through another way, some of the other spending in this bill or some other savings throughout the government. Why can't we find the money and help fund migratory bird conservation, which I believe in, and maybe we can do that in another way without violating the budget. They say no.

But I will say to my friends at Ducks Unlimited and other groups that support the bill, they were not here 15 months ago. They did not vote on a bill that said we are going to limit spending to this amount. I did. Every Senator here told their constituents that Congress voted to limit spending to a certain amount and we would not go above it.

I understand Ducks Unlimited and other groups have a special interest and a deep concern, and I share it, to help maintain our great heritage of hunting and conservation in America. I understand that.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 additional minutes to wrap up.

I will just say, we have responsibilities to the budget, to the Treasury. I will promise one thing: If we go back home and talk to duck hunters, as I do, and hunters on a regular basis, they think we are spending money like crazy. They think we do not adhere to any agreements. So I do not think the average duck hunter would be concerned if we slowed down a little bit and sent this bill back to committee and had it paid for so we did not violate the budget. In fact, I think most of the people I know would be very supportive of us doing that.

This proposal is a tax plan, pure and simple. The CBO and the Office of Management and Budget--President Obama's Office of Management and Budget--say the duck stamp fee is a tax. It is a tax, and Congress has always set the amount of it. This bill--I do not like this--we fixed this in committee, but Senator Reid has brought up a bill without those fixes. The committee bill would have said Congress sets the amount of the tax on the American people, not some unelected Secretary of the Interior. Why should he have the unilateral ability to raise taxes on Americans? It has never been done before. It should never be done. It violates good, sound principles of government in America and actually I think it would violate the Constitution to do that. It is certified by OMB and CBO as a tax.

Also, I hear it said it would actually reduce the deficit. If we raise taxes by

$145 million and then we spend $140 million, we can go around and say: We reduced the deficit by $5 million. But I asked Senator Warner and other colleagues have they researched this budget of ours to seek to find an additional $140 million? If we are going to raise the duck stamp by $140 million, if we are going to raise it by that amount, why wouldn't we reduce the deficit by $140 million instead of just $5 million? Those are the decisions families and small businesses make when they deal with these challenges in their budgets. They are required to make choices. One thing this Congress seems to always want to avoid is making choices. Since they can find nothing else in the entire Federal budget that would pay for this bill, this sportsmen's bill, it would indicate to me it is not a very high priority.

But the truth is that is not exactly true. The truth is, they never looked to find anything else they could cut that is wasteful or duplicative. In fact, there are over $900 million in existing wetlands conservation programs today. Nobody has sought to examine those programs to see if they could be more efficiently run and probably it would free up that much money right there.

I know the pressures. I know how this system works, but the people who drafted the Budget Control Act were aware of how Congress likes to spend. They specifically intended not to allow us to spend more by taxing more. They set explicit levels on how much we could spend. Therefore, this bill violates those spending levels, even though it has taxes there, and, as a result, it violates the budget and should not pass in its present form.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I will be raising a budget point of order against this legislation. But I do want to thank my colleague, Senator Tester, for his hard work and the efforts of a lot of people to put this legislation together. I would hope my colleagues would listen to why I think it is important this bill--with a lot of good points in it, which I favor strongly--needs to be sent back and fixed.

The reason is this: The bill violates the Budget Control Act that we passed August a year ago. That has been certified by Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and his staff. It plainly, as often is the problem, spends more than the Budget Control Act allows to be spent. Chairman Conrad, as I said, has agreed with that assessment.

No. 2, now this is the fourth bill brought before this Senate by the majority leader in the last 15 months that violates the budget. It is the fourth time. This is a time in which our country has never faced a more serious systemic budget crisis. We are on an unsustainable course. We know that. One of the things we need to do is figure out a way to constrain ourselves, and the Budget Control Act was a step in that direction.

To raise the debt limit in August 2011--we had borrowed all the money we could borrow, and to raise the debt ceiling, the debt limit, the Budget Control Act was passed. It limited spending, and that was all part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling.

These violations of the Budget Control Act lower respect for the Senate by the American people. It hurts our Nation because it impacts our debt situation and our spending, and it cannot be justified. It should not happen. We can avoid this.

I disagree with Senator Tester on this point. Of course, sustaining the budget point of order will not kill this bill unless in some manner of pique Senator Reid were to say: I am not going to bring it up if you do not pass it just like I said it ought to be passed and you will not waive the budget and just violate the budget and do it like I said. I do not think Senator Reid will do that. Surely, he will not do that.

So what would happen is it would go back to committee, and Senator Reid would review it and see what we could do to fix it, which will be easy compared to some of the difficult problems we have around here. The need would simply be to find $14 million a year. I have suggested a number of ways already, but those have not been used. If we would think about it this way, we are talking about finding savings somewhere in this monumental government of $14 million when we plan to spend $370,000 million this year. By Alabama standards that is a lot of money.

Another problem: The bill is subject to a House blue slip. Under the Congressional Budget Office analysis and the President's own Office of Management and Budget in the White House, the duck stamp is a tax. It simply is a tax. People can say it is not a tax. It is a tax. They have defined it as a tax. We do not have the ability to redefine the meaning of words around here, and a tax cannot originate in the Senate. So the House, as it is presently written, is likely to object and will object to this, I am certain.

Another easily fixed problem in the bill is this: The Environment and Public Works Committee brought up the legislation. The question of whether the duck stamp tax should be set by law, by Congress, or be given to a member of the President's staff to set at whatever level he wants was discussed. Senator Boxer agreed with those who shared the view that we should not be delegating to an unelected Cabinet person the power to set taxes in the United States of America. He can set the duck stamp under this bill at any level he wants to set it at. That is not good.

This is a constitutional issue. I feel strongly about it. Congress must never cede its power to tax to a single person not even accountable or any other entity, the U.N. or any other entity. The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and only the Congress the power to tax. That can easily be fixed. There is not a problem here.

It has been argued that the point of order is only technical. Do not worry about this point of order. It is only technical because the new spending in it is paid for. How? By tax increases. So the Budget Control Act drafters, 15 months ago, and the budget rules of this Senate understand this argument. This is not a new argument. They knew this kind of gimmick would come up under the Budget Control Act, and they prohibited it. They understood it, and that is why they prohibited it.

Under the Budget Control Act, a spending limit is a spending limit. I know Senator Reid seems to think if he raises taxes he can spend more, and he does not have to pay attention to the Budget Control Act he supported and the President signed and negotiated 15 months ago. He does not have to do that because he has paid for it, he thinks, by raising taxes. But the truth is the Budget Control Act does not deal with taxes. It deals with spending, and it prohibits more spending than the amount above the EPW allocations.

I note my friend, Senator Tester, and my friend, Senator Warner, earlier--they are fine Senators--said there is no problem. OK. There is no problem, Sessions. It reduces the deficit by $5 million over 10 years. We should not worry. So you say: OK, Sessions, why are you complaining? You are worried about the deficit. It reduces the deficit by $5 million. CBO says that. That may be the case. I think it is the case. But what is the answer to that charge? The answer to it is simply this: This legislation, as it is now written--and can be changed-- raises taxes $145 million and spends $140 million, and they pat themselves on the back and say: We pay down the deficit $5 million. Give me a break.

Think about this, though: If the spending limit of the Budget Control Act were complied with, we would not have a $5 million reduction in the deficit. We would have a $145 million reduction in the deficit at least. We would have $145 million in deficit reduction instead of $5 million. So let's ask: Has anyone looked around to see if there is any spending that can be reduced to pay for this? The Interior Appropriations bill spends $29 billion a year. We cannot find $14 million?

Well, the answer is, nobody has looked to save any money to pay for this bill. Nobody, really.

Well, why not? Because it asks the Members of the House and the Senate--the Congress--to choose, make priority settings, and that is hard. We do not want to do hard things. There are over $900 million spent in wetlands programs like that in the bill that advance duck causes and hunting and so forth, according to the Congressional Research Service. Has anybody ever looked to see if that multiplicity of programs might be consolidated and save, out of $900 million, maybe $14 million right there? Plus, any other spending in this government could be utilized to keep within the spending limits and not violate it.

But the fact is the Budget Control Act said we must choose. If we want to

have a new program in one of our areas of the government, fine and dandy, but we have to do it within the limit of spending we have agreed to. This bill does not do that. Under this rationale, we would have to assume, would we not, that the needs of this bill are so little that there is not a single other program in America, not a single one, that is less valuable. Therefore, the only way we can proceed with this bill is to raise taxes, raise revenue. That is just simply not correct. We know better than that.

There is no reason these problems cannot be fixed. Slowing down, complying with the Budget Control Act, not delegating to an unelected Cabinet Member the power to raise taxes, not violating with a blue slip by commencing a revenue bill in the Senate, is not hard to deal with.

So I say to Senator Tester: Thank you for your work. I am not sure the way this was done precisely was something you suggested. I believe we can work this out. I have made some suggestions. I am open to a lot of suggestions, but I will just say to my colleagues, I will continue to object to any bill brought before this Congress that violates the solemn agreement we made 15 months ago in the Budget Control Act. And this one does. Senator Conrad has verified that. If my colleagues will adhere to the limits of spending that we agreed to 15 months ago by supporting this budget point of order, this popular bill, with a lot of good values in it, will be quickly fixed and passed--there is just no other way to see it--and in the future, committees and Senator Reid, perhaps, will stop sending budget busters to the floor of the Senate.

Mr. President, I was going to make the budget point of order at this point, but I see Senator Tester. I do not know if he wants to speak. Let me say again how much I appreciate the hard work Senator Tester has put into this. He is a friend. I know he has worked hard, and I hate to cause him heartburn at this point in time, but I really would say I have raised this budget point of order on other bills and it is not that I am complaining particularly about his. His, in fact, will be a lot easier to fix than some of them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2875, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid, would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the authorizing committee's section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority and outlays. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the measure pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.