Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the coming debate on the budget resolution. I am very concerned about the use of the budget process to pass very complex climate legislation.

When you think about it, cap-and-trade bills are enormous bills. They are complex, they require discussion, thought, debate, and a very careful weighing of the costs and the economic impacts of the legislation. Such a thoughtful, careful approach is simply not possible if we were to choose to move ahead with a cap-and-trade bill through a budget reconciliation process.

I am not alone in believing this. At least 32 of my colleagues agree with me, and I suspect there are more. But these 32 colleagues cosigned a letter which I circulated together with a man I admire and respect a great deal--the senior Senator from West Virginia--to the Budget Committee. The letter plainly stated that we oppose the use of the budget reconciliation process to consider complex cap-and-trade legislation. Thereafter, the junior Senator from North Dakota, another man I admire and respect, also from the other side of the aisle, sent a letter to the Senate Budget Committee expressing similar concerns.

Some of the cosigners support cap and trade. Yet they also oppose using budget reconciliation to enact it, to make it the law of the land. A group of Democrats in the House recently expressed identical concerns.

Despite this very bipartisan, bicameral expression of clear disapproval, there are some who continue to push the use of the budget reconciliation process for cap and trade. Press reports indicate that the leadership in the Senate and in the House continue to discuss passing cap and trade through the budget reconciliation process. Just this last weekend, administration officials indicated ``all options remained on the table.''

Even more troubling to me, yesterday we learned that the House included reconciliation instructions for the Energy and Commerce Committee, directing it to reduce the deficit by $1 billion by 2014. But don't be deceived by the stated goal of reducing the deficit. The House language, in my opinion, is a Trojan horse.

The fact is, this language opens the door to cap-and-trade legislation at some point in the budget process. It could be set up to bring in $900 billion in fees and spend only $899 billion, for example. Authors could claim to have reduced the deficit by $1 billion, but in reality every American family will have to pay thousands of dollars per year in increased energy costs. The use of such language would clearly serve one purpose: to slip through a piece of legislation that could literally change the economic landscape of this country under the cloak of the budget process.

To be very clear, my comments today are not meant to address the general merits of climate change. I am simply saying no to shortchanging the legislative process and supporting instead a very careful, deliberate, and meaningful review of the legislation. It is troubling that leadership would even consider trying to put it in under the mask of another bill.

When the Senate considered climate legislation last year, the bill set caps on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions through the year 2050. That is 40 years. The cost of such a cap is estimated to be $900 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It would reportedly require 400 additional staff at the Environmental Protection Agency just to set up the program and write the rules. What does that mean? It means requiring almost $1 trillion in permits for the first 10 years, and according to the President's budget director, of course, this will cost consumers.

In Senate testimony last year, the CBO Director at the time noted:

Firms would not ultimately bear most of the cost of the

allowances, but instead would pass them along to customers in

the form of higher prices.

Under the President's proposal, an average American family would pay $3,000 a year in increased energy bills. In this day and age, that is a very heavy burden. It simply is not right to contemplate imposing a tax of $3,000 per family in legislation that is passed under the cloak of another bill.

To summarize, Mr. President, cap and trade is complex. It is as difficult a piece of legislation as we will face this year. It will set limits on economic growth for the next 40 years, it will require a small army of additional Federal employees, and it will require every American family to pay a price. So I urge my colleagues to support a thoughtful, deliberate, transparent effort to address this country's energy challenges. I urge them to oppose the use of the budget to pass cap and trade in any form or fashion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the text of the two letters I referenced earlier in my remarks.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to support programs which help individuals with developmental disabilities such as Special Olympics. The care and treatment of people with developmental disabilities has always been a priority of mine. In fact, it is probably the major reason I am in public service today.

When I was Governor of Nebraska, I made it a priority to reform a piece of the system delivery in our State. Many of these citizens had mental illness and developmental disabilities. One of my major achievements was signing a bill into law which increased the use of community-based services for these citizens.

In Nebraska today, these citizens are much more likely to receive care at a specialized day treatment program or other local residential facility. This legislation was a victory for those Nebraskans and their loved ones who suffer from mental illness, giving them a chance to more fully participate in everyday life and to make a contribution to their communities.

Our efforts to aid the most vulnerable among us, though, must be a national as well as a local goal. And Government is only a part of the solution. There are many impressive private organizations which assist people with disabilities, but perhaps none as impressive as the Special Olympics.

Special Olympics is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping this population become physically fit and productive by participating in sports training and competition. For over 40 years, Special Olympics has used sports to help bring people together and provide a venue for athletes with disabilities to compete with each other as equals.

But as anyone who has been involved with Special Olympics can tell you, it is much more than just the competition. The camaraderie and the sense of accomplishment felt by these very special citizens and athletes gives them self-confidence in every aspect of their lives. This is critically important work.

Special Olympics and similar organizations are vital to our fundamental national principles of human equality and our basic common dignity. It takes many volunteers to drive the success of an organization such as Special Olympics. In fact, when the National Games come to Nebraska next year, they are going to need 8,000 volunteers to serve 3,000 athletes, 15,000 family and friends, and 30,000 fans who will attend.

I am very proud our home State is taking on the challenges associated with this sporting event. Special Olympics has raised $1.5 million in private local funding for the 2010 National Games, which should indicate the State's level of enthusiasm for the event. To encourage the American volunteer spirit and help Special Olympics reach its goal of 8,000 volunteers for the 2010 games, I am very pleased to introduce an amendment which would increase the funding authorization for service programs assisting people with disabilities. I can think of no more worthwhile endeavor.

My amendment would double the amount of funding authorized under the National and Community Service Act that is set aside for such purposes and double the limit of such funding to $20 million. It must be the task of all of us to care for those most at risk. Helping people with developmental disabilities lead productive and fulfilling lives benefits our entire Nation and should thus be a national priority. I hope the Senate will agree with me on this and vote to pass my amendment.

Thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, may I inquire as to whether the esteemed Senator from Maryland would be willing to guarantee a determination on the amendment so we get a resolution of the issue?

Mr. President, that is agreeable. We will work together and make sure we are not displacing another program and work toward a determination.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the President's budget outline.

For too long, Washington has promised way too much, without a plan to pay for it. The result is that we face a financial crisis unlike any other generation.

The lesson is that we must not overpromise and, therefore, we must not overspend. Americans are making very tough decisions in their daily lives that members of their Government still refuse to make.

Unfortunately, the President's budget outline is an example of this continued pattern. The President's budget fails to chart our country on a path toward prosperity. It exercises far too little restraint and does not even attempt to tackle the massive fiscal imbalance facing future generations.

The budget we have before us, regretfully, is a spending frenzy, a taxing spree, and a borrowing nightmare as big as any that our country has ever seen. The President's first budget can, most definitely, be characterized as unprecedented and historic on many levels. However, a budget that breaks the record for spending the most, taxing the most, and borrowing the most of any budget in history is not the kind of record the American people can afford to see broken.

Let's take a look at the massive tax increase. With a pricetag of $1.9 trillion, it winds up being the largest tax increase in history. Incredulously, though, not a single penny goes toward deficit reduction.

Now, one might ask, how is it possible that the budget contains the largest tax increase in history, yet not one cent of that increased revenue goes to pay off our Nation's obligations?

I will tell you why--because the budget gobbles up that tax revenue for more spending. When that revenue isn't enough to fund all of the Government expansion, the President's budget just keeps on spending.

There is so much bloated spending that the CBO released an estimate Friday projecting a deficit of nearly $1 trillion every year for the next 10 years. Our country is faced with an unprecedented deficit. So can anyone answer whether it is sound fiscal policy to tax more just to spend more?

At a time when we must do something to pay off our debt and reduce deficits, the budget simply ignores these problems. It taxes and it spends, inching this great Nation ever closer to bankruptcy.

One of the specific tax increases found in the President's budget is a proposal to enact a cap-and-trade regime. Estimates predict that by enacting this policy, each household will see an increase of $3,100 a year in higher energy costs. But not to worry, the President said he is using the money raised from a cap-and-trade program to make the work opportunity tax credit permanent. That credit would provide families with $800 more a year.

The math is straightforward. Let's do the math: a tax increase of $3,100 offset by $800. This is still a net tax increase of $2,300. Just think, it would take a family of four who makes $50,000 a year 2\1/2\ weeks to earn enough to pay for the new tax. That same family with a $100,000 mortgage could make about 3 months of mortgage payments or buy 8 months of groceries with that $2,300.

Beyond the consumer, the cap-and-trade program will have a devastating impact on the farmers in my State. One study found that enacting cap and trade would raise the cost of producing an acre of corn by anywhere from $40

to $80 per acre. Folks in Nebraska produce about 9 million acres of corn each year. So we are looking at $3 billion to $7 billion more a year in higher input costs for that producer. This would be devastating.

The President's budget also contains harmful tax increases on small businesses--the job engine of our economy. According to the latest figures, small businesses create over 74 percent of all new private sector jobs, employ over half the labor force, and contribute about half of the Nation's output. The last thing our country needs when unemployment is projected to be as high as 10 percent is a tax on the very segment of our economy that creates the majority of the new jobs. It goes against all logic to encourage output productivity and job creation in one breath and then penalize that same success with tax increases in the next.

The small businesses located in towns across Nebraska cannot afford another penny in extra taxes. When I talk with folks back home, I hear how they are juggling the electric bill, the health care costs, working to make payroll, while trying not to lay people off. Why would they believe that their Government wants them to succeed if Congress turns around and slaps a crippling tax increase on them during their most trying time?

Beyond the staggering tax increases contained in the budget, the spending is also the most we have ever seen in history. The pricetag is $3.6 trillion for 2010. Let me repeat, $3.6 trillion. To further illustrate the massive spending and subsequent borrowing we would have to undertake, I have a chart regarding public debt that I wish to put up and share.

Last year, the debt held by the public as a percent of gross domestic product was about 40 percent. As my chart depicts, by 2019, this will rise to 82 percent. If you do the math, that is a 100-percent increase. Let's look at the pure dollar amount. The President's budget outline would double the debt held by the public in 5 years and nearly triple it in 10. It goes from $5.8 trillion in 2009 to $17.3 trillion in 2019.

Let's imagine for a second if the average citizen behaved as Government is being suggested it should--to sign up for credit card after credit card after credit card, max them all out without making a single payment on the principal, never once scaling back on their spending, and then send an IOU to the company saying: I will pay you some day.

Even our creditors have come forward with doubts regarding our spending behavior. China within the last few weeks has expressed concern. The chief China economist for JPMorgan, Frank Gong, put it this way:

Inside China, there has been a lot of debate about whether

they should continue to buy treasuries.

China is already the No. 1 foreign holder of United States debt. If they stop financing our spending, what then? Who will be Uncle Sam's banker when the IOUs catch up with us?

I am extremely worried by the result this runaway spending will create--lower standard of living, inflation spiraling out of control, less economic opportunity for future generations. What if future generations do not have the ability to get a home loan for that first house or student loans to go to college? Isn't it our goal to provide a better life for our grandchildren and children?

In conclusion, let me say that none of us has a crystal ball. I realize the President has a difficult job, but I do know that trying to lead the country out of this mess with bigger Government, runaway spending, massive debt, and tax increases is not the way to go. Future generations deserve better. Making tough decisions has to start somewhere, and I am disappointed that this budget outline passes the buck to another day.

I will wrap up with this. I look forward to working with my colleagues as we debate our Nation's budget next week. I sincerely hope there is a genuine commitment to tackling some of the concerns that I have outlined today.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the Military Family Nutrition Protection Act, which we introduced today to protect the eligibility of military families for nutrition assistance programs. This bill will do a great service to the families of our men and women serving in uniform in combat zones overseas.

When a soldier is deployed to a combat zone such as Iraq or Afghanistan, he or she receives a temporary increase in pay called ``combat pay.'' Too often, combat pay increases the soldier's salary to a level that makes his family ineligible for essential nutrition assistance programs like the School Lunch and School Breakfast programs; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; and other programs. The family can no longer receive government assistance for food, despite the fact that the soldier's increase in pay is only temporary.

Our bill will remove this burden from our military families and stop punishing them for the sacrifices their loved ones make overseas. The bill stipulates that combat zone pay be excluded from consideration when determining a family's eligibility for all child nutrition programs. That way, when a soldier deploys to a combat zone, his or her family can continue to receive the nutrition assistance it needs, and our soldiers have one less thing to worry about in the combat zone.

As Secretary of Agriculture, I proposed a similar combat pay exemption for Food Stamp eligibility, a proposal that was included in the final version of the Farm Bill passed by Congress last year. The Military Family Nutrition Protection Act is the logical next step to ensuring our military families get the assistance they need while their loved ones are away at war.

As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am proud to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. I look forward to working on the upcoming reauthorization of the child nutrition programs, and I will urge my colleagues on the Committee and in the Senate to include the Military Family Nutrition Protection Act as part of that reauthorization.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the Military Family Nutrition Protection Act, which we introduced today to protect the eligibility of military families for nutrition assistance programs. This bill will do a great service to the families of our men and women serving in uniform in combat zones overseas.

When a soldier is deployed to a combat zone such as Iraq or Afghanistan, he or she receives a temporary increase in pay called ``combat pay.'' Too often, combat pay increases the soldier's salary to a level that makes his family ineligible for essential nutrition assistance programs like the School Lunch and School Breakfast programs; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; and other programs. The family can no longer receive government assistance for food, despite the fact that the soldier's increase in pay is only temporary.

Our bill will remove this burden from our military families and stop punishing them for the sacrifices their loved ones make overseas. The bill stipulates that combat zone pay be excluded from consideration when determining a family's eligibility for all child nutrition programs. That way, when a soldier deploys to a combat zone, his or her family can continue to receive the nutrition assistance it needs, and our soldiers have one less thing to worry about in the combat zone.

As Secretary of Agriculture, I proposed a similar combat pay exemption for Food Stamp eligibility, a proposal that was included in the final version of the Farm Bill passed by Congress last year. The Military Family Nutrition Protection Act is the logical next step to ensuring our military families get the assistance they need while their loved ones are away at war.

As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am proud to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. I look forward to working on the upcoming reauthorization of the child nutrition programs, and I will urge my colleagues on the Committee and in the Senate to include the Military Family Nutrition Protection Act as part of that reauthorization.

Mr. President, I wish to offer my congratulations to Hamilton County, NE, as Progressive Farmer named them the top county in our country to raise a family. As I am sure the senior Senator from Nebraska would agree, this is a community worthy of the honor. With the great beauty, work ethic, and commitment to family and neighbors, truly Hamilton County and all of Nebraska offers visitors and residents a uniquely fulfilling quality of life.

I know the senior Senator from Nebraska has also been to Hamilton County numerous times. Would the senior Senator like to offer his thoughts on the honor this Nebraska county has received?

Mr. President, I anticipate about 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the legislation that is before us that is making its way through the process. Make no mistake about this legislation, it is a bill with the largest price tag in the history of our Nation--really in the history of the world. A mind-boggling $1.2 trillion is going to be acted upon probably in the next 72 hours. I would venture to guess that if you went around and asked how many zeroes are in that number, many could not answer that question. Despite what I believe to be a good-faith effort to cut some of the cost out of the bill--a reduction of about $110 billion or roughly about 10 percent of the overall cost--I wish to be on the record saying that simply is not enough. It is not good enough. What is even more troubling to me is that even with those cuts, this legislation is roughly about $7 billion over the House version. The best efforts to cut wasteful spending still have left us with what appears to be a more expensive version than even the House version.

The sponsors of the amendment assert they have cut about $110 billion. However, let me be very clear about something. The bill is still comprised of wasteful spending in programs that I would suggest might be worthy of some support in the appropriations process, but I don't see how they stimulate the economy. The wheels on the train have completely fallen off in terms of this bill resembling an economic stimulus bill. It is a gigantic appropriations bill.

Now, I wish to be clear about another thing. I am not saying that many of these programs are not legitimate programs. In fact, in the years I have been in public life, I have fought for many of these programs. But someone will have to explain to me how giving money to consolidate the Department of Homeland Security headquarters will stimulate this Nation's economy. Or how money to NASA for Earth science missions will give a shot in the arm to the economy and generate real economic activity. Program after program: Motor vehicles for the federal government, money for trail maintenance. I could go on and on and point out program after program that, again, maybe good within the annual appropriations process, but I don't see how it stimulates the economy.

I also wish to talk about the tax portion, if I might, for a moment. Many of us have heard time and time again when the President talked about helping the middle class, but did my colleagues know the figure on what constitutes middle class continues to dwindle away? If what I am hearing about the alternative is true--and we haven't seen any detail on this--but it appears that the compromise shrinks

that yet again. It shrinks the composition of those receiving the work opportunity tax credit by 44 percent from what the President originally defined as the middle class.

Now, it appears that if the schedule goes on as anticipated, on Monday the Senate will be asked to vote to move this compromise further, but the American people need to know the facts about this amendment and the overall debate. Many on the news, and even today I have listened to talk of bipartisanship here, talk of people crossing the aisle. At one point in my career I was a Governor; at another point before that I was a mayor. I come from a very unique perspective. I come from a State that has the only unicameral system in the Nation. But what is even more unique is that the legislature it is not Republican or Democrat. Our Senators were elected on a nonpartisan ticket. In fact, they used to say that they held that nonpartisan badge as a badge of honor.

When I was Governor, or when I was mayor, I can tell you what I thought bipartisan was. We would see a problem out there as it arose and I would bring the elected people in, literally one at a time, and talk to them: What do you think we should do here? What is your best idea? How should we approach this issue? That would go on for months leading up to the introduction of a bill. Then, on the floor, they would work through that bill. Oftentimes there would be groups gathered around trying to work on a given section of the bill--Republicans and Democrats and Independents. Eventually, a bill would be produced and a vote would be taken and some would vote yes and some would vote no and sometimes they would send me a bill I didn't like and I would veto it and then they would decide whether they wanted to override it. That is a bipartisan effort.

Let me assure my colleagues that unless there is a new meaning attached to this word--I have only been here about 26 days--this bill resembles nothing I see as bipartisan. It appears to me that most of the time only two Republicans were a part of closed-door meetings, and in the end, that was announced as a bipartisan effort. I don't understand that. If you think about the dynamics of this, less than \4/ 10\ of 1 percent of the Congress participated in this on the Republican side.

The one constant I hear over and over again is the pressing need to enact this legislation now; that we have to hurry. In fact, I just heard the word ``filibuster'' used--that we don't have to do anything except get this bill done. Well, let's examine the discussion regarding TARP last year, and what we heard or what we read about the need for TARP sounds exactly like what is going on now. Now we have TARP, it is in place, and congressional investigators are telling us the Treasury Department overpaid for bank stocks by $78 billion. I wonder what we could have done with that $78 billion that has now been wasted. Nearly 22 percent of the taxpayer money used for the bailout--22 percent gone in an instant. Well, as the old adage says: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I am not willing to put aside due diligence. We owe that to the American taxpayers. We have a responsibility to make sure we get it right this time. We cannot afford to find a few months from now that what we thought would work didn't work at all.

I wish to share a story. I am reading through a stack of newspaper clips from all around that my staff prepared for me, and there is this little community and they had a road project and it was making its way through their capital improvements process. It finally got to this year, the year it would be built, and the money is in the bank to do that project. Do you know what the article pointed out? That they took the money away from that project. Why? Not because they didn't believe in the merits of that project, but because they knew that this major allocation of funds was going to come from the Federal Government. And do you know what? Having been there as a mayor and as a Governor and as a city council member and as a county commissioner, that is going to happen thousands of times across this country.

The stimulative effect is not going to happen in the timeline that is promised. It won't be long and we will be reading GAO reports about waste, fraud, and how this didn't do what it was supposed to do.

I will wrap up with one last thought. This is literally borrowed money. I pointed out last night that we took a lot of votes getting here. We are going to take a few more votes to pass the bill. And do you know what? We are not going to vote on paying for this. In fact, I don't believe anybody alive in the Senate will take a vote on paying for this.

We have left the paying for this bill to another day. I hear the debate about who is responsible and this one did that and that one did this--I don't think that is what the American people were trying to accomplish in November. I think what they were trying to accomplish was for us to get our fiscal house in order. I don't think they sent me or any of my colleagues here to try to sort out fault. I think they sent us here to solve problems. I see the massive amount of money and, again, I will reference my experience. I come from a State where our Constitution requires a balanced budget. It forbids the elected officials from borrowing over $50,000. I used to joke with Nebraskans that $50,000, when the Constitution was passed, was probably a handsome sum of money. It can't buy very much today.

Post-9/11, when the Presiding Officer was a Governor and I was a Governor and we were struggling with how to balance the budget, I could not issue debt. There were only two choices: raise taxes and cut spending. I believed in the second choice. I sometimes lost those arguments because my unicameral legislature disagreed with me. But we had a very clear and straightforward assessment of what our problems were and what the costs were. It never occurred to any of us that we could go out and tell our kids and grandkids we are going to buy ourselves out of the problem and leave it to them to try to figure out how to pay for it.

I will wrap up with this thought. I have only been here 26 days. I don't know whose fault this is. I do know and believe that the kind of change we were asked to bring here was a different direction in terms of how we run our Government. I want to be a part of that. I have attended all the meetings on budget balancing to try to educate myself as to how overwhelming this problem is. I will tell you that we have to grab ahold of this at some point, or there won't be a solution. Our dollar won't be worth anything. The foreign purchasers of our debt will look at us and say the only solution America knows is to print more money, and their money isn't worth much anymore. My generation probably won't pay a very heavy price for that, but other generations will.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to elaborate on a couple points I made a day or so ago on this stimulus package.

Many in this body and constituents across Nebraska know I am a former mayor, a former city counsel person, a former county commissioner, and a former Governor. I have had the opportunity to govern during very good times when the revenues were available. I have had the opportunity to govern during very tough times, where we were trying to figure out how to balance our budget.

I point out, again, that in the State I come from, we not only have to balance the budget, but we are prohibited by our Constitution from borrowing money. So the State has no debt.

I have been in those positions, the beneficiary of programs such as this package but much smaller programs. I have never been, nor has anyone else been in the history of this country, the beneficiary of a spending bill this large. To describe this as large is not to do justice to the discussion. This is enormous.

I am sure what is happening across the country in mayors' offices and Governors' offices as they try to figure out how to deal with this massive amount of money that is being dedicated to what I would argue are valuable programs in the normal budget process--Medicaid, education, special education, parks facilities, whatever it is, although we addressed that with an amendment--what is happening is this: mayors and Governors are looking at their budgets and they are recognizing that there is money that is going to come in huge amounts from the Federal Government. So they are looking at their capital improvements process in their budget and they are saying: What is it that I can now take my local dollars or my State dollars and set to the side and fund with this massive amount of Federal spending that is occurring that is going to rain down on my local government or my State government?

As I said, these are valuable programs, there is no doubt about that. I funded all these programs at one point in my life. What I suggest to this body is you are not going to get any kind of stimulative impact from what you are trying to accomplish. The Governor or the mayor is simply going to look at these dollars as found money, and they are going to take their State and local dollars, set them to the side, and spend the Federal dollars, and no stimulation will happen to the economy. No new jobs will be created. In fact, I would even suggest you will be very hard pressed in the year or 2 years of this stimulus package to even find a new project that would not have otherwise been funded through the normal State or local process.

I also wish to talk about one last piece of this that is very important, and we acted on this with an amendment. But I need to say something that is very important because this needs to survive whatever process is left, and that is this whole issue of competitive bidding.

This is a massive amount of money. The temptation to ignore the transparency of the bidding process is simply going to be too great unless we act, not only today but as this process goes forward. The temptation to allocate this money with the transparency of the bidding process will take control and literally we will be looking back and we will be fighting this and recognizing that money got doled out, it got handed out without any kind of transparency in the competitive bidding process.

I have been there in those offices, where I have had members of the administration come in and say: Governor or mayor, we need to waive the bidding process.

Let me wrap up with this thought. These are valuable programs. I have funded these programs.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, if you could give me an alert with about a half a minute left, I would appreciate it.

I rise tonight to speak about the agreement that was announced within the last hour or so. We have taken a lot of votes over the last few days. In fact, I have had colleagues on both sides of the aisle say to me we have voted a lot on this bill. As I pointed out, I am new here, but it sure seems as though we have. But the one thing that occurs to me is that in all of this debate, we are not going to vote for how to pay for this bill. I want people to understand this bill is going to be totally, completely financed with borrowed money.

The other thing we are not going to vote on any time is a plan for our future to pay for this bill and the other spending that seems to be headed our way like a freight train. We are not going to cast that vote. We are asking a tremendous amount of our country to try to figure out a way to withstand that. The cost of this bill by any definition--I don't care where you land in terms of what the ultimate costs are--is mind boggling. And because it is all financed, it will be well over $1 trillion in spending. I listened to the testimony tonight, and so many people I respect on both sides of the aisle got up and said we have to do this now.

I wasn't in this body when TARP was passed, like so many others. I was out on the campaign trail. But the same argument was made then: We have to act now.

Mr. President, I have in front of me the bill that was put on my desk this morning. It just goes on, page after page. It takes a lot of pages to spend $1 trillion. We have not seen the compromise yet. I heard tonight from the four speakers that we could get an idea what the compromise was all about. We will have it. Somewhere in the next 48 hours, we are going to get a whole new plan--this compromise--and we are going to be asked to make an assessment on it and to go down there and cast our vote yes or no on $1 trillion worth of spending.

Let's slow down and take our time. Few things are going to be as important as this.

Madam President, let me start out and indicate I am aware of the fact that Senator Baucus has deferred so I can speak now. I appreciate that professional courtesy.

I rise today to address the decision that is before us and to maybe share some insight that I hope is relevant. I believe it is relevant to the legislation we are debating, the stimulus package. Maybe I can offer some insight that is a bit unique from the perspective of a former mayor and a former Governor.

The so-called stimulus would send a financial windfall to cities and States. The hope is that somehow that will filter into the economy. I will readily acknowledge that I have been on the receiving end of those kinds of windfalls--nothing this large--as both a mayor and as the Governor of Nebraska. In my home State, fiscal responsibility is not just a worthy goal that we aspire to achieve. It is demanded of our elected officials by Nebraska taxpayers. So when the Federal Government sent an infusion of money for education or social programs, whatever it was, the first place I looked as Governor or as a mayor was to the bottom line in my budget. I examined how much the State was budgeting for these programs, and I examined whether the State should save those State dollars.

Today's Governors, mayors, and school boards have many budget options also. They might allow this Federal money to pass on through. In the alternative, they might decide taxpayers are best served by allowing Federal funds to replace the State or local dollars. This would maintain existing funding levels and allow them to tuck away their State dollars in anticipation of tougher times ahead. Perhaps they would choose to pay down debt.

Keep in mind, choosing to turn on the Federal funding faucet means facing the challenges that will occur when the funding faucet is later turned off. Just imagine the tremendous difficulty of that. It would cause yet a new crisis.

If Governors choose to hold on to their cash, or some of them, it is true it may provide them some security as they work through very difficult budget issues. But to be very candid about this--and, again, I was in this position--it would do absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. The money simply would never reach the economy.

The first tranche of the TARP funds does illustrate the point I am trying to make today. The Federal Government sent hundreds of billions of dollars to banks to get credit flowing. The expectation was that this money would translate very quickly into car loans, student loans and operating loans for businesses. What happened? Lending has declined--for a variety of reasons, many legitimate, and some banks that have received Government money have actually reduced lending more sharply than banks that chose not to take the money.

If we truly want to maximize our chances of boosting the economy, then we must minimize the filters through which we send that money. In my career I have had an opportunity to manage enormous bureaucracies. I have watched as they devoured resources in the name of delivering resources to others. It seemed that no matter how forcefully and sternly I demanded effective operations, those filters oftentimes became very narrow funnels.

Tax relief, I would suggest, puts dollars directly in the hands of taxpayers and businesses. That is not necessarily a guarantee it will flow to the economy, but it is very clearly the most direct route to the people who are most in need.

I must also admit that I am deeply troubled by the rush to approve the largest spending bill in history with no plan to pay for it. There really is, literally, no plan--no plan at all. There is not even an attempt at a plan. It seems these days in Washington something can be deemed an emergency and suddenly all fiscal restraint is checked at the door and everything in the bill becomes a piece of solving the emergency. I cannot imagine how we justify passing the cost of this to our children. It is as if some believe we can use a credit card and history will somehow forgive the debt.

Just last year when the deficit reached a half trillion dollars it sent a shockwave across this country. Yet the spending machine just rolled on. For this year, that number doubled to more than $1 trillion, and there was a collective outcry to rein in spending. Now we are faced with legislation that would double the deficit in the blink of an eye. How many times can it be doubled before the debt becomes insurmountable and, tragically, the dollar becomes worthless?

A group of Nebraskans came to see me recently. They brought me a beautiful picture. I have it on display in my office. It was drawn by a 2-year-old girl. We talked about the stimulus package, and I certainly reached the conclusion that they were advocating that somehow, if we passed this, it would deliver a benefit to this child. But I wondered out loud how our young people would feel about being asked to pay the $1.2 trillion pricetag. I wondered how they would manage a national debt that now grows at a rate of $3 billion a day. I contemplated how this little 2-year-old's quality of life would be so different from what we enjoy. If we do not take responsibility for spending, her quality of life will never match ours. She might never dream of going to college or owning a home, and here is why. As tough as the economy is today--and I do not debate anyone about how tough it is--there is a day of reckoning, when the burden of debt is crushing. If investors finally lose confidence in our ability to manage our debt, who then bails us out? It

is even more remarkable to me that we are contemplating the largest spending bill in history at a time when every one of us is aware that the current level of spending is not sustainable. It is not an abstract problem. It is real and it is growing with the passage of time. We cannot keep passing the buck with a promise to make tough decisions in the year to come. It does begin with the decisions we make today.

Like every single Member of this body, I am proud of the State I represent. I want Nebraskans to know every day that I support them. But that does not mean I support this bill. Some might be disappointed when I vote against this spending bill, but I believe Nebraskans understand what it means to take responsibility. They expect that of me today, just as they expected it when I served as their Governor.

The Nebraska State Constitution requires a balanced budget. That is not unusual. But the constitution of the State also basically bans any borrowing of money. So when the economy collapsed post-9/11, we made difficult decisions while other States issued debt. I not only had to balance the budget, I had to do it without borrowing a dime. It was not easy, but we did it and the tough choices were worthwhile. When I came to the Cabinet, I did not have to turn to the Lieutenant Governor and tell him that I had left a pile of debt behind. The State has steadfastly adhered to the principle of fiscal responsibility, and because of that it is better positioned to face the challenges of today.

I want to wrap up with this: I understand the significance of trying to do all we can to boost this economy. Of course I want people to have jobs. I want them to be able to pay the bills. But this is not a stimulus plan; it is a spending plan. It will not create the promised jobs, and it will not activate our economy. What it will do is place a punishing debt on our children and grandchildren.

I could not vote for this bill and still claim that I represent the principles and values of the State I come from, the State of Nebraska. I do want to say I will meet with my colleagues, any colleagues, across the aisle, to roll up our sleeves to set a fiscally responsible course, not only today but for the future. While we cannot solve all of our financial problems or balance the budget overnight--and no one is expecting that we can--we must begin this important work today. I want to be a partner in that.

I yield the floor.