Floor Statements

Madam President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize a man who lived a life of honor, serving his country, his community and his family. John Leo Francis Howlett, Ph.D., U.S. Army, retired, served our country in the Army for 30 years and retired at the rank of colonel. Dr. Howlett served in Vietnam and then in the Army Officers Reserves. Upon completion of his Active Duty time, Dr. Howlett obtained his Ph.D. in education and became involved in his community through teaching at the college level, first in Michigan and Wisconsin, and then Washington State, Oregon, and Minnesota. He returned to Spokane, WA, where he finished out his teaching career and retired in 1999.

While vocation tends to determine our geography, our lives are defined by our character. Dr. Howlett was a man of strong faith, high integrity, commitment to challenges, and a true family man. It is said that he never missed a game, meet, tournament or even practice in the sports lives of his five children. He taught his children to respect our tremendous natural resources and imparted his love of hunting, fishing, sailing, and camping to them. The example he set--high achievement, attaining goals, and excellence--lives on in the lives of his children, all high achievers and highly educated in their own right.

John managed to fight the cancer that took his life for 5 years, and passed on July 4, 2005. His son, Mark, described his father thus: ``In today's world this is what America needs, a hard working patriot that believed in family, his country, and bettering the children of tomorrow. He was one of a kind, a family man, outdoorsman, husband, father, brother, son, teacher, coach, Catholic and most importantly my best friend!''

I am honored to reflect on this life well-lived.

Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I wish to mark an anniversary, one that was many tragic years in the making. According to the Idaho AFL- CIO, 35 Idaho workers were killed due to on the job injuries in 2007. Next Tuesday, April 28, is National Worker's Memorial Day, which celebrates the day the Occupational Safety and Health Act--OSHA--became law in 1970.

More than 30 years ago, in 1967 a construction worker in Nampa, ID, Louis Jose Archuleta, was killed in a jobsite accident. Louie and others were installing a sewer line, 35 feet deep, in sandy soil, when the soil caved in. It trapped Louie, and, although fellow workers and rescue crews worked diligently for two and a half hours, their efforts were hampered due to further collapses of cleared areas, and Archuleta did not survive.

But Louie and many other workers knew what they were facing. Just a week before the accident, Louie told his sister Victoria that it was the most dangerous job he had ever worked on. Safety inspectors were in the process of shutting the job down at the time of the accident, a process that, in 1967, took at least 5 days to shut down a job.

Louie was very active in the local labor union and served three terms--9 years--as president of Labor's Union Local No. 267 in Pocatello, ID. He was a strong advocate for a retirement system. As a result of the tragedy, the Idaho AFL-CIO joined the push for Federal legislation to protect workers, legislation that was later known as Occupational Safety and Health Act, OSHA.

With Louie, his family and the many others who have suffered due to worker safety issue, I am honored to recognize National Worker's Memorial Day, keeping in mind Louis Jose Archuleta and all fallen workers for their contribution to the infrastructure of the State of Idaho and the Nation and to the establishment of OSHA and much-needed increased worker safety standards.

Mr. PRESIDENT, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Madam President, In mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Madam President, today I would like to note the sudden passing of Peter K. Wilson, of Lapwai, ID. A lifelong farmer, World War II veteran and father of seven, Peter was a leader in Idaho agriculture. He served as chairman of the Nez Perce County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, and as a member of the Idaho State Brand Board, the Nez Perce County Fair Board, the Lewiston Grain Growers Board, and the Idaho Co-op Council Board of Directors. From 1988 until his untimely death on March 30, 2009, Peter was an elected commissioner of the Port of Lewiston, and served as chairman for several terms. From 1994 to his death, Peter also served on the board of the Pacific Northwest Waterways, and was chairman from 2003-2005.

He received numerous awards and honors throughout his working life, including the Governor's Award for Lifetime Achievement in Agriculture, Nez Perce County Grassman of the Year and Nez Perce County Outstanding Farm Citizen.

Peter's love of farming, the mountain pastures he called home, and his family was well-known to many. In his contributions to the community and to Idaho agriculture, he touched many lives, working hard and providing strong, principled leadership. Peter will certainly be missed. I offer my condolences to Peter's wife, Pat, and their family at this difficult time.

Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, in a few moments I am going to send an amendment to the desk. It is on its way over here right now. I would like to speak about it for a few minutes until it arrives, at which point I will ask to set aside the pending amendment and offer the amendment.

The amendment I wish to offer is very critical. We debate budgets every year in Congress, and most of the years I have served here--I was elected in 1993 and served 6 years in the House, and now I am in my second term in the Senate--most of those years we have adopted a budget resolution. Some of those years we were not able to get the necessary votes to adopt one. But as we proceeded and moved forward in the deliberations of these budgets, I noted an interesting thing: Some years we would have a 10-year budget we looked at. We would have the year we were actually working on--and in this case, we are working on the 2010 budget--and then we would project out 9 more years and say: We expect, in the next 10 years following the year we are working on, to see the following budget numbers be honored with regard to defense spending or nondefense discretionary spending or the like. Sometimes we only look out 5 years.

This year, the President submitted a budget that looked out 10 years. The Budget Committee, however, took that budget window and reduced it to 5 years. The reason I point this out is because as we talk about what the budget is going to do and what the fiscal impact of the decisions we are debating today is going to be, we always talk about whether the budget is going to get us on a glide path to balancing our Federal budget, what kinds of deficits are going to mount in the outyears, what kinds of tax increases or tax reductions are going to be accomplished in the budget. Yet, if you look closely at these budget documents and if you look closely at this budget document, all the tough decisions are always in the outyears. I should not say that is always the case because I have to say that occasionally Congress has stepped up to the plate and has made some tough decisions. But it is not the commonplace occurrence.

Let me give you an example. The amendment I am going to offer would cap the first 3 years of this proposed budget in terms of nondefense discretionary spending. In other words, it would say this budget proposes the following spending in nondefense discretionary categories for 2010, 2011, and 2012, and thereafter, and my amendment would say that the numbers that are proposed in this budget will be binding on Congress. In other words, if we adopt this budget, we will follow it. And I am only saying for 3 years. I am not even saying for the full 5- year window the Budget Committee has put forward or for the full 10- year window the President has put forward.

Why is this so important? Sometimes I jokingly say that during the time I have served in Congress, I have never made it to year 2 of any budget because every time we do a budget--whether it is a 10-year budget or a 5-year budget--we always implement the first year of that budget and then next year, when we come back, we seem to forget about what the budget projections were and what our promises to the American public were, and we start all over again and we do another 5-year budget. And year 1 of the next 5-year budget does not even look like what year 2 of the last budget was.

Let me give you an example. I was going to have some charts ready, but the opportunity to speak came before the charts got here. If I could show you those charts, I would show you that for the 2010 budget year we are working on today, if you had looked at what Congress said it was going to do this year 3 or 4 years ago, and then you looked at what Congress said it was going to do this year 2 years ago, and then you looked at what Congress said it was going to do this year 1 year ago, and then you looked at what Congress is proposing to do this year, they are not at all similar. As you might guess, the proposed spending in this year's budget for this year is far in excess of what the projections were in the previous budgets which we debated and voted on.

Let me put it another way. This year, we are looking at a 5-year window. The increase in nondefense discretionary spending in the first year of this budget we are talking about is approximately 7.3 percent-- well over double the rate of the growth of the economy.

Just as a note, last year, the budget that we adopted finally in the Omnibus appropriations bill increased nondefense discretionary spending by about 10 percent. So in just 2 years, we have seen nondefense discretionary spending increase by about 15 to 17 or maybe even more percent.

Well, back to the budget. The proposed increase in nondefense discretionary spending for this year in this budget is about 7.3 percent. But the promise is: OK, we have to spend that much this year, but we are going to be better in the outyears. So in the second year of this budget, the proposed increase is down, I believe, around 1 percent. In the third year, I believe that proposed increase is about 1.5 to 2 percent.

But my point is, we are not going to get to those years. We never adopt the next year--the second year and the third year and the fourth year and the fifth year in these budgets we debate.

So all my amendment will do is this: If we are telling the American public we have to increase our discretionary spending by 15 to 20 percent over the last 2 years--7 percent alone in this budget year--but that we are going to be fiscally more conservative and responsible in the outyears, let's make that binding. Let's at least say for the next couple of years we have to follow the budget we are debating. All we would need to do in order to accomplish that is to put some caps on that nondefense discretionary spending as we move into it in the outyears.

Every time we look at this, the spending goes up. If you look at the actual rate of growth in our budget, it is unsustainable. What we need to do is to be straightforward with the American people as we approach this. Anything else is just window dressing. All of the numbers we are talking about today

and all of the projections we are talking about--how we are going to try to bring the deficit under control or reduce the national debt--are simply window dressing if we do not make them binding, other than the first year of this budget. That is what will really be binding.

I will say it again: The only thing that will really be binding in this budget, if we adopt this budget resolution, is the first year. This amendment would make, in the nondefense discretionary spending portion of the budget, the second and the third year numbers binding. By doing so, Congress would actually be setting some parameters for itself so we could have a firm confidence that as we move forward, we will be able to have the kind of deficit reduction and spending restraint we always talk about.

Madam President, at this time, I send to the desk an amendment.

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

Madam President, as I have said, the amendment is very simple, and it really speaks for itself. It simply says that instead of debating numbers that do not mean anything, let's put some meaning and some authority behind the numbers we are debating. Let's not continue the game Congress continues to play year after year whereby we adopt a budget with no hard decisions in the first year, which is the only binding year, and all the tough decisions in the outyears are not binding and never reached. And let's say we are serious about it.

I have even agreed in my amendment to accept the high numbers in the first year. I personally would prefer to have some restraint now in the first year of this budget, and instead of increasing spending in this Government by 7.3 percent, I would rather reduce it to the rate of the growth of the economy or below that, and let's start catching up a little bit with regard to the spending we are engaged in.

Many people have said on this floor that this budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. The most significant portion of all of that occurs in this first year. Let's get to some of the restraint that is promised in the second and third years by adopting this amendment, putting the caps on the nondefense discretionary spending categories, and make sure Congress, like the households and businesses across this Nation, tightens its belt and follows a budget.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, could I just have a couple of minutes before we move on to the next item?

Two or three minutes is all.

Should we let Senator Ensign go right now?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we return to the previous amendment.

Madam President, I will be brief. I do appreciate Senator Conrad and the service he provides to us as the chairman of the Budget Committee. He makes some very good points. It is true that Congress can come back at any time and change the caps that we might put on today, but at least the Congress would have to debate that and would have to make a conscious decision that America could watch, and Congress would have to say to America: You know what. We are not going to do what we said we would do. If we don't put caps on this budget, then there is nothing the Congress has to do but adopt another budget resolution.

By the way, I also appreciate the fact that some of the emergency spending and the other games that are used in Congress to get around caps are identified by the chairman as difficult problems. We need to have much less of that gamesmanship and much more following of the rules in our budget so that Americans can truly see how much is spent and how much is being taxed as we move into these budgets.

I wish to give a couple of examples to show what I am talking about before I conclude. If we were to look at the fiscal year budget authority for 2009; that is, the budget year we have just finished with the Omnibus appropriations bill a few weeks back--in 2006, we said in 2009 we were going to spend $409-plus billion. In 2007, we didn't get a budget report because we couldn't reach agreement on one. In 2008, we said that number was going to be $465 billion. In 2009, we actually said it was going to be about $480 billion--or $488 billion. The real number ended up being almost $800 billion.

I realize there was some stimulus package money in there, some TARP spending, and so forth. The point is, it went up from the projection in 2006 of $409 billion to a reality, even without the TARP and other dollars, of around $500 billion.

What about this year we are talking about right now? The proposed budget for this year, I think, is around $525 million for nondefense discretionary spending. That is what we are debating on the floor today. Well, in 2006 when we debated the budget and set our projections, that number was around $409 billion; in 2008, $476 billion; in 2009, $492 billion; now, as we move forward to the final projection, $525 billion.

The point I make is that every year Congress says this is what we are going to spend in the outyears, and every time we come back to it we never follow those requirements. We should put caps on at least the first 2 outyears so that when Congress comes back to deliberate again, and when the President submits a budget to us next year, there are fiscal caps for nondefense discretionary spending requiring the restraint we are promising Americans we will someday get to.

Congress has a pattern of spending more and more and more every year. As I have indicated, nondefense discretionary spending has gone up 15 to 17 percent the last 2 years. The fact is, it is time for us to adopt this amendment and put caps on the first 3 years of this budget to force some fiscal restraint in Congress.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, this amendment is straightforward. One of the reasons Congress cannot control its runaway spending is that we always have 5-year budgets, where the tough decisions are made in the outyears, and in the first year of the budget, we don't make any tough decisions. This amendment will put a cap on the nondefense discretionary spending for the first 3 years of this budget using the very numbers of the budget.

Why do we want to do this? Look at the budget. In the first year of this budget, nondefense discretionary spending grows by 7.3 percent. It is true that in the second and third and outyears, that rate of growth is projected to go down to under 2 percent. But we never get to the second year of any of our budgets because next year we will come back and start all over. We will have a budget where all the pain is in the outyears and the first year doesn't make any hard choices. We need to support this effort to put some teeth into the budget, put caps on at least the first 3 years of the numbers this budget proposes.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in mid-June, I asked Idahoans to share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering well over 1,200, are heartbreaking and touching. While energy prices have dropped in recent weeks, the concerns expressed remain very relevant. To respect the efforts of those who took the opportunity to share their thoughts, I am submitting every e-mail sent to me through an address set up specifically for this purpose to the Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention, and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to have today's letters printed in the Record.