Floor Statements

Mr. President, amendment No. 3382 would require the use of competition for all Federal contracts awarded after the date of the enactment of this act for disaster assistance. It would also require the Federal agencies to review and recompete no-bid contracts that had been awarded prior to it. There is no penalty if it is a no-bid contract, but as that goes forward, additional payments on that would have to come in to review. All this is, is about good government and getting value for the dollars we are going to spend.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, there is no reason to take additional time. The fact is right now with FEMA, they have prebid contracts. In New Jersey, they didn't take the lowest competitive bid contract on the debris removal. We are going to spend about 20 percent, 25 percent more because the Federal Government is paying for it.

The vast majority of the money in this bill is not going to be contracted out initially. As a matter of fact, only $9 billion is going to go out right way and that is in terms of flood insurance. The rest of it is coming from the FEMA funds and the DRF funds. None of those are competitive bid contracts, and it will not have any impact on housing, home flood insurance or any of those other areas. Doing it right and getting value for our money is important, especially now that we face the difficult fiscal times that are in front of us.

I urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back the remainder of my time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to move to the next amendment.

Mr. President, I understand that amendment No. 3383 is now in order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes.

There is a lot of work in this bill for the Corps of Engineers, and they are going to have a lot of work to do in the remediation and mitigation that is associated with Hurricane Sandy. However, in this bill is a provision which says that whatever the Corps decides to approve, they give a blanket authorization. This means if, in fact, the Corps doesn't do what is in the best interests for New Jersey or New York, they get to make the decision. The appropriators and authorizing committee don't get to decide; the Corps makes the decision.

The one organization that has a problem with priorities in this country today is the Corps of Engineers. For us to blanket whatever they say as a priority versus having government, committee, and appropriator oversight by giving this blanket waiver is to take away our powers to correct them. All this does is say it is not automatically authorized and we will have plenty of time. All these are mitigation projects. They should all be authorized and approved by the committee of jurisdiction as they go forward. Rather than a blanket approval, all they have to do is come to Congress and say: Give us approval.

We are setting a terrible precedent. What this says is, in the future, we are going to let the Corps decide what is important rather than the Governors, the State legislators or the Congress.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I think the Senator from California has a great solution to the problem. I was not aware of that being accepted.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Inquiry of the Chair, Mr. President.

It was my understanding we were going to have ordered votes tomorrow rather than this evening, and I would ask, through the Chair, the chairwoman of the committee if my understanding is correct.

I would on this particular--I think we ought to have a recorded vote on this. That would be my request.

Mr. President, I ask, through the Chair, if the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee would like for me to begin calling up amendments.

I thank the chairwoman.

Mr. President, a little perspective before I offer these amendments.

We have before us a $60 billion-plus bill. There is no question there is great need in response to the devastation that occurred from Sandy. But what the American people need to know as this bill goes through the Senate is this bill is not going to be paid for. There is no amendment that has been approved that will allow offsets for this bill.

So as we clear this bill through the Senate--the $60-some billion we are going to clear--we are actually going to borrow that money. That is indisputable. I have spent the last 8 years outlining the waste, the duplication, and the fraud in the Federal Government. Those amendments were not made in order that would offset and actually pay for this by eliminating programs of the Federal Government that do not actually do anything to actually better the lives of Americans.

I am very appreciative of the opportunity to offer these amendments. I would also note we could have done these last week had we had an open and moving amendment process. We would not be here today working on Sandy. We would have finished it last week, but we chose not to do that.

Amendment No. 3369 to Amendment No. 3395

Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 3369 be called up.

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

Mr. President, this is a fairly straightforward amendment, and this is not to be construed as an amendment against the appropriators but, rather, an amendment for transparency.

What the underlying bill states is that 3 days before any grants are made under this process that the Appropriations Committee will be notified--not the whole Congress, not the American people but the Appropriations Committee. The reason for that is so the Members of the Appropriations Committee can then put out the information to the constituencies who are going to benefit from the grants that come through this.

Actually, the American people need to know the grants that are going to be granted through this process, the money that is going to be spent. So all this amendment does is change it to where the American people get notified of the grants that are going to be placed as a result of this bill.

This is about good government. This is about transparency. This is about letting all the Americans, who are actually going to pay for these grants, know what is going on, when it is going on, and how it is going on, who is going to get the money, and how much money they are going to get.

It is straightforward, very simple. It just says let everybody know-- not a select group of Senators or House Members but everybody in this country who is footing the bill ought to know where this money is going to be spent. They ought to know it at the same time anybody else knows. It is just a transparency amendment so we all know where the money is spent, and we know it at the same time.

Amendment No. 3371 to Amendment No. 3395

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside and call up amendment No. 3371.

This is another good government amendment.

One of the things that has happened since FEMA was set up is that what has occurred has created a disparity between the States. Let me outline, in the last 6 years the State with the most disasters--most of you would not realize--is Oklahoma. We have had 25 certified disasters in my State.

Now, how did that happen? It has happened because the per capita damage calculation has not been updated through inflation on a regular basis. So what is the effect of that? The effect of that is a State such as New York or California or Texas can have exactly the same disaster as Oklahoma, but it will not be declared a disaster because Oklahoma has less than 4 million people but we have X amount of dollars, but because we have such a smaller population, we qualify for a disaster declaration, whereas if the same thing happened in any of those three larger populated States, they would not qualify.

So this is actually an amendment that will not be beneficial to my State but is beneficial to us as American citizens to create equality in how we describe and how we grant disaster declarations.

So all I am doing is saying that between now and 2016, FEMA has to update. It will not have any application to what we are doing today, but it is a good-government amendment so that we will actually have a uniform process throughout the country so that disaster declarations are appropriately granted to States that appropriately need the Federal Government's help.

Remember, our definition on this is when we have overwhelmed local resources. That is the key. Then we use a per capita damage assessment to grant the declaration of emergency. So what I am trying to do is to create some clarity and also equality among the States so that everybody is treated equally. Right now, they are not. Quite frankly, my State is much advantaged, to the detriment of the larger States, because of our lower population, with the same amount of damage.

I would ask for concurrence on that amendment.

Amendment No. 3382 to Amendment No. 3395

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 3382 be called up.

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

This is an amendment some people do not like, I will grant you that. But I have some specific examples that are going on in New Jersey right now on why this amendment is needed. We have multiple contracts that were available that could have been utilized in New Jersey for debris removal. The company that got the contract actually is going to charge in excess of 20 percent more to the Federal Government for doing the same thing another competitive bid would have done. So we are going to spend at least 20 percent more on the contract for debris removal in New Jersey than we need to. That is because competitive bidding was not a requirement of Federal funds.

Here is some history. During Katrina, we know that $11 billion of U.S. taxpayer money was either defrauded or wasted. Let me say that again--$11 billion. Let me give the prime example of that. The Corps of Engineers was paid $62 per cubic yard to manage debris removal in Katrina. Through five layers of contracting, the people who actually did the debris removal in Katrina were paid $9 a cubic yard. So we paid six times what it actually cost to get the debris removal done because we did not have competitive bidding and we had multiple layers coming from the Corps of Engineers to national contractors, to regional contractors, to local contractors, to the actual guy with a backhoe and with a scoop and a dump truck. So we paid five to six times what it should have cost to actually get the debris removal taken care of. The same thing is going on in New Jersey right now. Right now.

So requiring competitive bidding--can there be exceptions to it? Yes. Are there times when you cannot do that? Yes. But as a general rule, especially since we are borrowing this money, we ought to be the best stewards of it that we can be. All this says is that we ought to require competitive bidding on these types of contracts to make sure we get value.

Why did New Jersey choose the more expensive contractor? Because the Federal Government is paying for it. This was a contract that was set that had been executed once in Connecticut. Because the Federal Government is paying for it, there is less decisionmaking about prudence and efficiency and effectiveness because there is not State money paying for it.

So what has happened is what was easiest, what was well-connected, what was well-heeled got the contract, and the one that would have cost considerably less did not get the contract. I would be happy to demonstrate for any of my colleagues showing them the difference between these two contracts on debris removal in New Jersey. So the same thing that happened in Katrina we are not learning from.

I agree that the debris needs to be picked up. We need to do it expeditiously. We had great opportunity to do that with both contractors, except we are going to pay a lot more because we chose to go a way that greased the sleds for those who were well connected.

Amendment No. 3383 to Amendment No. 3395

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside and amendment No. 3383 be called up.

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

This amendment attacks one of the features of this bill that I think steals from the authorizing committees the authority they need to have on authorizing projects. Let me quote the language in the bill:

Provided further that any project that is under study by

the Corps of Engineers for reducing flooding and storm damage

risks in the future and that the Corps studies demonstrate

will cost effectively reduce those risks is hereby

authorized.

With one sentence, we have just taken away the total capability of the authorizing committee to hold the Corps accountable. All I am saying is that we at least ought to have authorizers say whether this is a priority. It does not mean they need to stop it, but they ought to at least be informed, and the authorization of that ought to go through a committee.

In this bill, 64 percent of the money is not going to even be started to be spent until 2 years from now, so there is plenty of time for us to create the authorization process rather than to deem the Corps of Engineers their own order and desire in terms of projects they wish to do. It is about good government. It is about good input. It is about good oversight. Allowing the Corps just to deem something authorized without the input of the appropriate committee of this Senate I think is inherently wrong and potentially very wasteful.

Amendment No. 3368 to Amendment No. 3395

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside.

I ask unanimous consent that Amendment No. 3368 be called up.

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

Mr. President, the Sandy supplemental bill provides the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers $3.5 billion in funding for new construction projects. Of that, $3 million from this account is directed toward future mitigation projects, future flood risks for areas associated with large-scale flood and storm events, and areas along the Atlantic coast within the boundaries of the North Atlantic Division of the Corps that were affected by Hurricane Sandy.

The legislation also increases the Federal cost share for these projects that are funded with this appropriation. It changes it from 65 percent to 90 percent. The purpose of this amendment is to bring that back to 65 percent. It is not about being a miser. It is not about wanting to save money. It is about prudence. It is about sound judgment. It is about common sense.

What do we know from the 1988 Stafford Act? Here is what we know. What we know is that when we changed the cost share to an appropriate level so that we did not get things done on the Federal Government's, the taxpayers' dime without significant participation of local input, what the studies show is that during that 1-year period, the Federal Government saved $3 billion because projects did not get funded that were not priorities because of the 65 percent Federal contribution and the 35-percent cost share. So what this does is reintroduce the 65- percent Federal payment and the 35-percent cost share to do that. Again, most of these projects are not going to start until 2015. So priorities are important.

So we are borrowing $60 billion--and this is just the first bill, I am told, and I am sure we are going to have to spend more, but shouldn't we be more prudent with how we spend dollars that are going to be borrowed against our children's future? All this says is revert it back to what has been done.

The second point I would make is that this is the first time in recent history where we have said--the people of Louisiana had a 65- percent cost share to the Federal Government, the people of Texas, the people of Mississippi, the people of Alabama, and all of a sudden, we are now going to say: No, that does not apply to the people in the Northeast. So it is unfair to the other areas that had major catastrophes that now all of a sudden, in time of extremis in terms of our debt and deficit, we are going to all of a sudden change that. Why are we changing that, especially since most of this money is not going to be spent--is not even going to be initialized--for at least 2 years?

Amendment No. 3370, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3395

I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be set aside and amendment No. 3370 be called up.

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

The clerk will report.

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

Per the further request of Senator Schumer, I put a division in this amendment so we would have two votes on it, separating out the fisheries. Because he felt that was important, I was glad to accommodate his needs.

I would be happy to yield.

I am happy to do that. Let me tell you what crux of this amendment is. When we have disasters, we have real, legitimate needs. We have families who are hurting. We have businesses that are belly-up. We have homes that are destroyed. We have lives that are never going to be put back together no matter how much money we spend.

But there are people in our country who do not play by the rules. This amendment is specifically designed to not grant any of this $60 billion to true tax cheats. That does not mean something that is under discussion or under litigation; that is the ones who have already been deemed tax cheats. And the second thing is to not pay money to people who are deceased already.

What did we learn from Katrina? We learned that nearly $1 billion of Katrina money went to people who owed billions of dollars to the Federal Government. These were not disputable facts, these were real facts. We also learned that we spent significantly over $100 million giving grants and money to people who were deceased. So all we are saying is, on this bill, let's learn from our mistakes and let's not do the same thing.

So this puts a prohibition on money going to people who have a legitimate, adjudicated claim by the IRS that they are not paying taxes that are due to the Federal Government; that they, in fact, will not participate because they did not participate.

The second thing is if, in fact, you really don't exist any more in life, you really shouldn't be collecting money off our kids to pay for something that isn't a real need.

The final point of it is to really focus this on the Sandy supplemental, and that is the division on which we will have a separate vote, is for funding fisheries. I have no problem with funding fisheries. I have a big problem with borrowing from my kids to fund those very fisheries.

It is about priorities. We refuse to make priorities, and now that we have a bill that we don't have to cut spending anywhere from--we are going to borrow it all--we decide that we are going to add everything into it we can. I am not saying there is not a need in Alaska or on the west coast for this. What I am saying is there is a need for us to start making choices. The choice has to be not whether we will pay for it, it is what is a lower priority than funding the fishery? We tend to want to not want to make those choices. I am saying, in this amendment, that we ought to have to.

We will see what the will of the Senate is. I probably already know the answer to it. But the fact is that all we are doing is stealing from our kids. All of you know I can document over $200 billion a year in duplication, fraud, and waste in the Federal Government. We are not offering any of that to eliminate to be able to pay for this.

So if we are going to do the $150 million for fisheries, ought we not to cut spending somewhere else to pay for it? That is the whole point of this.

I would ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside.

I believe I am through, Mr. Chairman, and I would make the following point--

I am happy to have you take it. I have no objection.

I understand that.

I would object to that at this point in time. I would have liked to have had 5 minutes. I have to be somewhere at 7:30. I came down here, but I wanted to make some points before I leave. I was trying to sum up.

That is fine.

That is fine. I have to leave, but I want to make some points.

I am sorry that the Senator from Louisiana has left the floor because if she would have checked my voting records, I have not voted for

extending the Bush tax cuts because they weren't paid for. I said that on the floor. I have not voted to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because they weren't paid for.

So when we hear blanket statements that the other side--``the other side'' does not tow the line, as would be expected by the Senator from Louisiana, I have to object. The fact is, I have been very consistent on those issues.

I don't think you give a tax cut without cutting spending in the Federal Government. That is what the debate is all about.

The reason we are here tonight--and we have a $60 billion bill that is not going to be paid for except by our grandkids, with interest, which is going to become $120 billion by the time it is ever paid back--is because we don't have the courage to actually go through and make hard choices about what works and what doesn't, what is a priority and what is not.

Now, I don't have any illusions about my amendments passing. I am very thankful that a couple of them have been accepted. But the real problem that America sees at the end of this year is a problem with us, that we think we can continue to do business the way we have always done it. You know what. We can't.

We are going to pass this bill, and it is going to die because the House isn't going to take it up this year, and we are going to have to come back and do it again. Hopefully, we are going to do it in the best way that helps the most people in New York and New Jersey and everybody else who was involved there.

Right now, the FEMA money is flowing, and we need to increase the money. I am all for that. We need to make sure the flood insurance money goes out right away. But we better get hold of ourselves as a Senate and as a nation. We can say we have always done it this way. We can say we can spend $60 billion and not pay for it. We can add all sorts of things. We have a crop insurance program for apples, but we are not going to cover it. We are going to go--even the people who weren't covered are going to get covered even though they didn't participate. Under this bill, they are going to get covered. So what we are going to do is actually undermine the crop insurance program for apples.

But the point is that we are doing the same thing that got us into the trouble we are in. We are at $16.4 trillion in debt. When you include all the debt the country has in terms of municipalities and States, that is how you compare apples to apples with everybody else. We are at 120 percent debt to GDP ratio. It is killing our economy right now. Multiple studies show that it is probably hurting our GDP by 1.5 percent. That is 1.5 million jobs every year, and we are sitting here talking about we are in a different time, that we don't have $16 trillion worth of debt, that we are not going to have trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. We are totally disconnected from reality.

So I am not going to win. I understand that. I understand there is a need, and I want to supply that need, but how we do it is important for the future of this country. It is also important for our kids.

So we can rationalize and say that we have always done it this way, that this is the way the rules work, but there is going to be a very big price to pay, and when that price comes, those who are sitting in opposition to my amendments are going to see the consequences of that opposition played out in the worst possible way.

The debt bomb in this country is going to explode, and we are going to be held accountable for it whether we are still here or not. Our lineage, our reputation, our history as Senators in this Congress is going to come back to us that we weren't up to the task of making the hard decisions that would actually save this country, that would fix the problems and put us on track to grow again and be the America we can be.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the time and the chairwoman for her consideration. I thank Senator Schumer for his consideration on the amendments.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to return to Coburn amendment No. 3371.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with the changes I will now send to the desk.

Mr. President, I would like to talk about per capita damage indicators and initiating a rule process update.

The State of Oklahoma, in the last 7 years, has had more declarations of disaster named than any other State in the country. The standard used to be if we had a disaster that overwhelmed the ability of the State to handle it. We have gotten away from that, and this hasn't been updated since 1986. Under the Stafford Act of 1988, the whole purpose of our emergency response was for us to step in and provide assistance when State and local capabilities were overwhelmed. It is clear in New York and New Jersey and in communities that were affected by this latest storm that State and local capabilities were overwhelmed. It is clearly an appropriate time for the Federal Government, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to step in and provide assistance.

Unfortunately, FEMA has been declaring an increasing number of disasters over the past two decades, including for many storms and many events where State and local capacities weren't overwhelmed. Let me make that statement again.

Many of the disasters that have been declared were declared when State and local capabilities were not overwhelmed at all. So here we are, sitting with this tremendous debt, sitting with tremendous deficits, and we are now applying a lower standard than what we should, in my mind. It is not just my opinion; the GAO has actually so decided. We have a GAO report that says this ought to be modified.

If we go back in history and look at the Reagan administration, on average they declared 28 events each year in the 1980s. Under the current administration, we are averaging 140 disaster declarations a year. My State, as I said, has had the most FEMA disaster declarations--25 in total.

So what I am offering isn't necessarily going to be beneficial for my State, but it makes great common sense for our country because if, in fact, they update the per capita effect, some of those declared disasters in Oklahoma probably would not now be declared disasters.

Let me give an example. In 2011, we felt a little tremble in Washington from an earthquake. A disaster declaration was declared for Virginia after the earthquake that was felt in the Capitol. But this wasn't a disaster that overwhelmed local capabilities. It didn't overwhelm the capabilities of the regional capital area, and it didn't overwhelm the capabilities of Virginia. Yet we transferred what were truly responsibilities of the State and local communities to the Federal Government.

So this per capita damage indicator ends up becoming very problematic for two reasons: First, it was established in 1986 and FEMA has failed to update it; and, second, simply using a per capita damage indicator is an unfair way to assess whether a disaster has occurred.

Let me explain why. Suppose you have a small populated State versus a large populated State where you have a large concentration of people in an area. You would not ever attain it if you have a large population, whereas if you have a small population, you will, with the exact same event. So my question is, Should Oklahoma benefit on a per capita basis from the same event happening in Oklahoma as happens in Los Angeles, where we get declared an emergency and Los Angeles doesn't? That is what has happened, since we have not updated this per capita damage indicator. It is unfair for the larger, more populous States that we do it this way.

So all we are saying is we should take the GAO report and follow some of the recommendations. And what are those recommendations? FEMA should review the per capita damage indicator and initiate a rulemaking to modernize it. It would require the FEMA Administrator to update the per capita damage indicator for all the years since 1996 by no later than January 1, 2016. So we are going to give them over 3 years to update it.

Second, the amendment requires the FEMA Administrator to report to Congress on better and fairer ways to assess States' preparedness and capabilities to respond to a disaster.

Finally, I would say this is a reasonable approach based on what GAO's analysis and recommendations were, which is to encourage FEMA to update its process for how it declares disasters so that we can preserve and focus more aid for disasters such as Sandy, which is in front of us right now.

It is my belief that although this may divide some in this Chamber, this is a smart thing for us to do for the country. It is a fair thing for us to do for every State--to treat them all the same instead of advantaging the smaller States, such as my State, and giving a disadvantage to the larger States.

I would be happy to work with the chairman to modify this in a way that would meet with his approval, but it is something that is sorely lacking. It is something that is causing us to intercede at times we shouldn't be and causing us to not intercede at times we should.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3368.

Through the Chair, I would ask the majority leader, he does not want amendments to be made pending for us to debate?

I am.

Well, I have five I was going to place pending, and I will be happy to work with the managers.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 3371 be called up.

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

That is fine. I have no choice but to accede to the Senator's wishes, so I will.

Absolutely.

This is updating per capita damage indicators and the process for determining declarations. Oklahoma has had more declarations declared, but we haven't updated the per capita indicator for a long time, so we have had no increase in that. So what is happening is that it is too easy to get a declaration declared. I am trying to have them update that to where it is more reflective of the true cost.

This would actually hurt Oklahoma.

I thank the Senator.

We have a bill before us that is $64 billion, and I have spent the last week trying to get the OMB and Department of Commerce the background on all of these requests, and what I can tell you is there is an immediate need for about $24 billion that we ought to be passing through this Chamber to take care of immediate needs over the next 2 years in relationship to this tragedy in terms of Sandy.

Almost every amendment I am going to offer or hope to offer is about transparency, is about limiting who can have access, such as people who are in arrears on their taxes for years and years.

What we learned on the Homeland Security Committee, which has the authorization of most of these programs, which I will become ranking member of, is that out of the $100 billion-plus we spent on Katrina, $11 billion of it got wasted. One of the reasons it got wasted is because we didn't have transparency, we didn't have good-government amendments on it. And we are getting ready to make that mistake again.

So I was asked to come down, by our side of the aisle, to have amendments pending, and now that I can't have amendments pending, I think I will

just talk in general about this bill for a moment, if I might.

There is no one in the Senate who does not want to meet the needs of the people who have suffered from this horrific storm. How we do that is important. Meeting immediate needs in terms of the insurance fund for flooding--that is something on which everybody would agree. Nobody is going to object to that. We are going to be short on that. But also what is important in that is that we should have a provision that if you were in a floodplain and didn't buy the insurance, we certainly should not be ponying up our grandkids' money to pay for you when you chose not to insure it.

The reason that is important--there are two moral principles on why that is important. No. 1 is that we are going to endorse irresponsibility. No. 2 is that if we don't put that provision in this bill, the NFIP is never going to work because in the future everybody is going to say: Don't worry, you don't have to buy the flood insurance. Congress is going to take care of it.

So it is those kinds of good-government things that I am trying to put into this bill, and now I am unable to bring amendments to the floor. There is no reason not to bring amendments to the floor right now.

We are going to pick and choose what amendments we are going to bring to the floor when we have good-government amendments? I am at a loss to know why we would object to good-government amendments.

I understand the majority leader's reasoning. We now have five amendments pending on this bill of $60 billion. You take five or six of the agencies, this bill is going to be more than what all five of those agencies spend in a year, and 64 percent of this bill would not even get obligated until 2015 at the earliest.

I also would remind my colleagues that on this $64 billion bill, we don't have to offset any spending anywhere under the rules. So here we have this $64 billion, when we know we are wasting hundreds of billions every year in agencies throughout this government, and we are going to borrow $64 billion and not do the good-government cleanup, transparency.

One of our amendments is about creating a Web site so everybody can see. One of our amendments is about not having no-bid contracts or sole-source contracts. We have all this experience from Katrina where we know the money was wasted. Yet now we are precluded from putting amendments on the Senate floor that would keep us from wasting that very money in this emergency supplemental bill. It shows the dysfunction of the Senate.

In 2005 and 2006, we would not have had this happen. Amendments would be offered, they would get voted down or embarrassed into not asking for a vote, or withdrawn. Now we are going to pick and choose good- government amendments. In other words, we are saying we don't want good government. We don't want to do the hard work of making things efficient and effective when we go to spend $64 billion.

I don't get it. I don't understand it. Generations will not understand it that follow us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent agreement to proceed to or dispose of Calendar Number 536, Senate Bill 2215, a bill to create jobs in the United States by increasing United States exports to Africa by at least 200 percent in real dollar value within 10 years, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I rise to speak of the confirmation of John Dowdell of Tulsa, OK, to a seat on the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Mr. Dowdell is a native of Tulsa and a graduate of Bishop Kelly High School. Mr. Dowdell received his B.A. from Wake Forest University in 1978 and his J.D. from the University of Tulsa College of Law in 1981. Following law school, he served for two years as a law clerk to the Honorable William J. Holloway of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. He then joined the firm of Norman & Wohlgemuth as an associate. In 1987, he was promoted to partner and the firm became Norman Wohlgemuth Chandler & Dowdell. Mr. Dowdell's practice areas include complex litigation and appellate work. He has been involved with six cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and has litigated before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on numerous occasions.

In addition to his legal practice, Mr. Dowdell serves as an Adjunct Settlement Judge in the Northern District of Oklahoma. In this capacity he has conducted over 50 mediations on a pro bono basis. He has also performed extensive pro bono work for several criminal appellate cases and his alma mater, Bishop Kelley High School. Additionally, Mr. Dowdell is a member of the Editorial Board of the Oklahoma Bar Association, a former president of the Bishop Kelley High School Board of Directors, and was appointed by the mayor to serve on Tulsa's Public Facilities Board.

Mr. Dowdell has received numerous honors for his legal practice, including being rated as one of Oklahoma's ``Super Lawyers'' from 2006 through 2011 and being named a Top Commercial Litigation Lawyer by American Litigation Magazine. He also was the recipient of the Distinguished Service Award of the American Inns of Court in 1993 and the Jack R. Givens Award for Professionalism and Service in 1998. The Oklahoma Bar Association Board of Governors has endorsed Mr. Dowdell's nomination to this judicial position and passed a resolution praising his demeanor, intelligence, and legal skills.

I firmly believe the rule of law is the foundation of our great Nation. By confirming judges of high character and integrity such as Mr. Dowdell, who are committed to the principles established by our Founders, we will ensure our Federal court system continues to dispense fair and predictable justice to all. I thank my colleagues for joining me in supporting John Dowdell's confirmation to the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I wish to explain my vote against Mr. Michael Shea, nominee to the District Court of Connecticut. My decision is based on Mr. Shea's assistance in drafting an anticus brief in the Supreme Court case of Kelo v. New London on behalf of the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and other municipalities.

The Kelo decision delivered a serious blow to private property rights by upholding a municipality's use of eminent domain to seize private homes and transfer the property to a pharmaceutical company for purposes of ``economic development.'' As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated in her dissent, the ``Court abandoned its long-held, basis limitation on government power'' in the Kelo case. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states: ``No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' The Kelo decision altered what was traditionally viewed as ``public use.'' As Justice O'Connor noted, as a result of this decision, ``Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. . . . Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.''

In contrast, Mr. Shea's amicus brief argued the eminent domain action taken by New London was constitutional and should be upheld. He asserted the ``taking of some of the petitioners'' homes'' is ``undeniably a genuine cost of realizing the City's goal of improving the economic well-being of its citizens?' But, the Public Use Clause ``sweeps as broadly as the [State's] police powers.'' He said siding with the Kelo plaintiffs in the case would ``contort'' the Public Use Clause. Justice Stevens, the author of the 5-4 majority opinion in Kelo, cited Mr. Shea's brief in his opinion.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of this case is the ``economic development'' that was key to the taking being a ``public use'' never happened because the developer could not get funding. Susette Kelo lost her property for nothing. The site of her former home is a garbage dump. This fact exposes another reason the takings clause was only intended for public use, because the government is more likely to have the funding ready to use the property. Normally, I would not hold a lawyer responsible for the legal views of his clients, but the Kelo decision dealt such a serious blow to private property rights, a crucial element of our founding principles, and so clearly departs from the original understanding of the Constitution, I feel I must vote no.

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

I just wanted to spend a few minutes talking about Reed amendment No. 3255 and to point out to my colleagues I know this amendment will pass, but I believe we ought to be on record as voting to add $1.7 billion in additional funds that our kids are going to pay for.

This is paid for, but it is smoke and mirrors. We have used a trick in how we do this. Ultimately, what is going to happen is here is another bill that will require funding from the health account at the Pentagon, which is in operations and maintenance, which means we will not have $1.7 billion for naval exercises, for flight training, for tank training, for range training. In other words, out of this account is where it comes to all the preparedness.

I must give President Obama credit. He has recommended what the committee recommended doing for the last 2\1/2\ years. Now we have an amendment that takes where the committee went to, actually, a small copay, increasing copay on pharmacy benefits for retirees, and reverses that and forces our veterans to have to use mail order. I am OK with mail order. I know we save a lot of money with that, but the CBO says as soon as we stop this one year, the mandate is going to go back the other way and the cost is going to be this amount of money. They have met the literal requirements of pay-go, but they haven't met the functional requirements. Here we have another amendment that we will take out of the operations and maintenance account, and that is important. But the most important issue in this debate is we continue to want to have benefits for our retired military that are growing faster than the rate of inflation--certainly faster than--and not have them help pay for the increase in the benefits.

We have $16.4 trillion worth of debt this morning. We have $88 trillion worth of unfunded liabilities, and now we are at this juncture where we are having a discussion between the Speaker of the House and the President on how we get over the fiscal cliff and start to solve some of these problems. We have an amendment put up because there is a very powerful force, all the service organizations and everything else, that said don't do this.

Everybody in our country, if we are to get out of the problem, is going to have to pay a small sacrifice. This is not a large amount of money, unless you are absolutely destitute, in terms of the copays. The President has recommended we do that, the committee recommended it and we are reversing it and using the gimmick so there can't be a budget point of order on it.

There will be a time in the not-too-distant future when the decisions to control our future will be out of our hands in terms of the economics and the debt. Delaying that now, because we do not want to yield against the popular criticism, will cause us to pay a further great price. The very people who are going to be asked to contribute as part of fixing our country are going to be paying a greater price.

I just received a book from our colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse. I received it today, and I have already finished half of it. It has a wonderful introduction. I would recommend to all my colleagues--I know they will get one--to read it. It is a collection of thoughts and sayings. If we read what Daniel Webster said, we read what Benjamin Franklin said, and we read what Winston Churchill has said about bowing to the public pressure rather than doing the best right thing, we will not regret it.

This is a popular amendment. It is going to pass. The service organizations want us to do it, but it is not the right thing to do. We have to begin, as we negotiate, to increase revenues from the very wealthy in this country, declining expenses at the Defense Department; everybody has to share, everybody in America. If they don't share now, they will share much more painfully in the future.

I don't have anything else to say on this other than I will vote against it, not because I want veterans to have to have a copay but because I want our country to get out of the hole we are in. Part of the sharing of that is a copay on retail pharmacy.

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.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business to offer a tribute.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to honor a member of my staff who is not retiring but as a result of his ailment can no longer come to work on the Hill. This gentleman's name is Michael Schwartz. He has been my chief of staff for almost 15 years, beginning while I was in the House and here in the Senate as well.

A lot of people on the Hill know Michael. What they know is that he is one of the kindest, gentlest people anyone has ever met. He has been a light focused on how we do things to honor other people.

Michael has been the kind of person who has always focused on others, especially those in need. He is the kind of person who doesn't pass up the homeless we all see around the Capitol but stops and tries to satisfy their need. He offers them money and food, but he also offers them friendship and his time. He offers them the love and dignity that comes from being reminded that we are all children of the Creator.

Mike has also been an unapologetic defender of the family and of those who cannot defend themselves, whether that be the disability community, the unborn, the infirm, or the elderly. He has reminded me and my staff and all of us that a society is truly measured in how it treats and cares for those less fortunate.

Mike is also a voracious reader and gifted leader. In a city where people stop learning when they gain power, Mike has shown that the closer one gets to power, the more one needs to humble oneself and learn new things. He has been mentoring staff and others for years on the Hill in both reading groups and Bible studies, where he has shared his wisdom, his faith, and his heart.

As many in the Senate know, Mike has ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. For weeks, he has been battling--actually months--to continue to fulfill his responsibilities here when most of us would have said: It is too difficult, I can't do it. He has overcome challenges that most of us can scarcely imagine. He has done so with grace, humility, and an unbelievable level of courage. Through all this, we have watched him inspire everybody on my team with both his spirit and his tenacity.

In these difficult circumstances, Mike has been an extraordinary servant and faithful leader. He is still the guy who cares more about other people than himself. The kindness he has shown to everyone he has encountered, whether to a homeless person on the street or a leading Senator in the halls, he has reminded our team and me that we are all equal regardless of position in the eyes of God.

Let me close with a passage from 2 Corinthians that reminds me so very much of Mike.

It is written: ``I believed; therefore I have spoken.''

Since we have that same spirit of faith, we also believe and

therefore speak because we know that the one who raised the

Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and

present us with you to himself. All this is for your benefit,

so that the grace that is reaching more and more people--

That wonderful word ``grace,'' too often a shortage in Washington, that Mike so well displays--

may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.

Therefore, we do not lose heart.

Mike, don't lose heart.

Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are

being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary

troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far

outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen,

but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but

what is unseen is eternal.

In a place preoccupied by titles and position and power, Mike has shown everyone by his life and his deeds and his words that things that are unseen are the things that matter. He has shown us what it means to run the race and finish it strongly. Well done, good and faithful servant.

My hope is that God will bless Mike and Roseanne, their children and grandchildren, as he closes this chapter of his life on the Hill. He will still be doing projects for us because his intellect, his insight, and his knowledge are what we cannot bear to do without. So it has been my privilege over the last 15 years to be modeled and mentored by my chief of staff.

Mike, we love you. God bless you.

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

Madam President, first, I wish to announce that I agree with the assessment of the Senator from New York in terms of the treatment that should be offered. I have no problems with that. I think she is right. There are a lot of other things in TRICARE that aren't right. And what the Senator from New York is doing is admirable, but there is a portion of it that is not.

With the modification to her amendment, she has now raised the total cost of this amendment over the next 10 years to $1.9 billion. And it is true that she has managed to insert with some excess funds that will be spent before the end of the year that won't be there by the time the money for this is used to pay for it. So she does meet that standard, but she doesn't meet the standard for the next 10 years.

So we are in the midst of this large discussion about how we are going to get out of this fiscal mess. I take her at her word that she really does want to reform TRICARE and fix it. But realize that TRICARE hasn't had a premium increase since 1995, and all it would take to pay for this is a $2-per-month increase in premiums for those on TRICARE. And it is just TRICARE Prime; it is not TRICARE Standard and TRICARE For Life. It is just $2. Madam President, $550 per year covers your whole family, with no deductibles and no copays right now. It hasn't been increased since 1995.

So one of the things we ought to do is we ought to work to bring TRICARE standards up to make sure they meet the needs of everybody. I don't disagree with that. But the other thing we ought to do is we ought to pay for it. Now, where is the money going to come from to pay for this, this very well-intentioned and proper thing? The way it is written now by the Senator from New York, this will come out of the operations and maintenance fund. So the very father of an autistic child will have less flight time, less drill time, less shooting time, less preparation time to go out and be a warfighter. And as we think about the 10-percent across-the-board cut that is coming or the $500 billion that is proposed to come out of the Defense Department, none of it is going to come out of TRICARE.

So what we ought to do is we ought to fix these things, but we ought to fix them without digging our hole deeper.

Before Secretary Gates left, he said the biggest thing that is eating the lunch in the Defense Department is the department of health within it that manages the health care because we have not done an appropriate job of having a slight rise in premiums to cover some of the tremendous benefits. Nobody else in the country gets the benefits we give with TRICARE--nobody--$550 a year per family, $275 if you are single, and no copay and no deductible. All it would take is $24 a year by our TRICARE Prime to pay to make sure that the people with disabilities and the people with autism have the appropriate therapies and they are covered under TRICARE.

So I would ask my colleague from New York if she would mind withdrawing her amendment, to be voted on later, that I might be able to offer a second-degree amendment and maybe in that way or another way pay for this out of things that we know are going on, that we could find $1.9 billion over the next 10 years to actually pay for the cost of this over the next 10 years. We didn't have time to do that beforehand. I don't know if she would be willing to do that. But there is no way you should justify taking another $1.9 billion out of the operation and maintenance program for our troops to health care. We ought to eliminate something that doesn't take away from their training time, flying time, shooting time, or sailing time. We ought to be taking it from somewhere else, but that is where this is going to come from.

I applaud what she is doing. She is right about fixing the problem. She is totally opposite of what we should be doing in terms of paying for it, and I would offer to work in good faith in the next hour to try to come up with a second-degree amendment that would be acceptable to my colleague and to the chairman and ranking member of this committee that would actually pay for it.

Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, how much time is remaining?

I would be happy to yield.

Madam President, might I ask through the Chair the Senator from New York if she would consider for a short period of time withdrawing her amendment and allowing me to develop a second-degree amendment that would actually pay for this so that we would accomplish her goal--and I think all of our goals--of making sure the proper treatment is there but won't handicap the armed services in terms of delayed training, less training, less flying time? Because it is going to come out of the operations and maintenance funds. I wonder if she would do that with the assurance of the chair and the assurance of the ranking member and chairman of the committee that the amendment would still be considered.

I yield the remaining portion of my time.

I think my colleague from New York would like to ask for the yeas and nays.

I think we ought to have a recorded vote on this since we are not paying for it and we are taking $1.9 billion out of the O&M budget of the Defense Department. I ask we have a recorded vote.

Mr. President, we have made remarkable progress in this country in terms of research into diseases. Since Francis Collins and his great work on the genome complex became successful, the way we research disease has totally changed. I have my favorite aunt who died of pancreatic cancer. I diagnosed it hundreds of times in my own practice of patients who were dear to me and whom I love. The problem with pancreatic cancer is it is diagnosed late. It is an adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, much like an adenocarcinoma of the colon. The reason we do so well on colon cancer is we do colonoscopies and we can treat the disease early. What is well-intended by this recalcitrant cancer bill will actually delay the cure for pancreatic cancer and other recalcitrant diseases.

Let me take a few minutes to explain why I am saying that.

We no longer look at diseases to cure them by looking at the base disease. There is translational and neurocommunicative and peptide and small markers of communication on an intracellular basis. Now, when we do research and we find that, what we find is we find cures for multiple diseases.

The other thing is we can take 100 people with a recalcitrant cancer, and every one of them, when we look at the genetics of cancer, will have to be treated differently. In other words, it is going to take a different approach, even though we might classify it as a neuroblastoma of the kidney or a pancreatic cancer--but looking at the genetics of the cancer, which is what we are doing now, is going to require totally different treatments.

This is very well intended. I understand. This is a big disease, and it is terrible that we diagnose it at a time where we cannot end up-- less than 10 percent, around 5 percent survival rates, 5-year survival rates on this disease.

I would like to have printed in the Record a letter I received from Dr. Francis Collins. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed.

It is outlining NIH's and specifically the National Cancer Institute's concerns with this type of directive from us. I think they care about whether we solve these problems associated with these recalcitrant cancers. I think people who want to get it solved are true in their motives to try to solve it.

But there are some significant things in his letter that I would like to quote for my colleagues because I think it might just change your mind about us micromanaging what they are doing.

First, he says:

We have all the authorities to do whatever we need to do

with the money that you have given us. We can do all these

things you want us to do. If you tell us to do them, we will

do them. But we already have the authority to go where we

think we are going to get the best results in the quickest

way.

NIH constantly examines scientific opportunities and

conducts research evaluation and planning opportunities

within its current statutory

In other words they are looking, trying to figure out how they change, where they go now

The national cancer institute recently organized a group to

provide a ``horizon scan'' of pancreatic ductal

adenocarcinoma ad carcinoma, building on previous planning

They just did all this. They have just been through a total review of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and they have just shifted where they are spending funds to address this issue.

Basic research that may lack any overt connection to

specific diseases is the foundation for disease-specific

translational and clinical research.

We must preserve this translational research if in fact we will want to eventually apply it to specific diseases. So I would say this bill, ``pre'' the genomic age, would be a right thing for us to do. It is the wrong thing for us to do because what we are actually going to do is we are going to force the NIH to do things that are not going to benefit the results--the outcome of these diseases and waste money on what is being directed.

Do we have a time limit?

I ask unanimous consent to continue until I finish my remarks.

I wanted to finish my remarks.

It will not be much longer than that. I am certainly not

``Advances in the biological sciences have changed the way we view disease. We now recognize the dysfunction of specific biochemical pathways''--not disease-specific pathways--``biochemical pathways that govern cell behavior that may be similar in superficially disparate diseases or quite different in patients with the same disease.

What they are saying to us, through this letter, is that, of course, they are going to do what we tell them to do. But the very intent of what we are wanting to accomplish is we are going to delay the outcome because we have not significantly, in the last 3 years, significantly increased NIH's budget. So limited dollars are going to be spent as directed through this recalcitrant bill that are not going to direct the translational research and biochemical pathway research they are in.

I would just tell my colleagues in the next 10 years we are going to see such phenomenal changes in our approach to disease, and the treatments for that, and the reason we are going to see it is because we stop looking at diseases and started looking at translational genomics and biochemical pathways.

I will be one of the few who vote against this. I am fine with a voice vote if no other colleagues object. I have no problems with that. But in the name of doing good I suggest that we are actually going to limit our ability to achieve, at a sooner time, the cures that everybody who is supporting this bill would like to see.

I yield.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I find it highly ironic that we just passed an amendment to protect the constitutional rights of Americans, and we have an objection to protecting the second amendment rights of the veterans of this country. How in the world can we say to people who fight and defend for us through a social worker deemed incompetent to carry a gun, that ought to be on the basis of a danger to themselves or to someone else, and it ought to be adjudicated, and we have Senators objecting to protecting the rights of the people who defend us?

On that basis, the contrary nature of that basis of what we just did, I will object to any further unanimous consents on this bill until we have a vote to protect the rights of the people who defend this country.

All we are asking for the veterans of this country is that if their rights are taken away that it be adjudicated by a judge or magistrate. That is all we are asking. Rather than a social worker at the VA--which is what happens today to veterans. We are not asking for anything big. We are just saying if you are going to take away the second amendment rights, which means all those who truly should lose their rights will lose them, but they ought to have it adjudicated rather than mandated by somebody who is unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.

I will announce today right now that I will not object if Senator Levin again offers the request that will put four amendments on the floor. I will not object to that. I want to cooperate in this body. But I think you ought to think about what we just voted on--which I voted for--which is to protect the Bill of Rights for people of this country. To protect the Bill of Rights for people of this country. There could be no one for whom we should want to protect the Bill of Rights more than somebody who served our country.

We can object. All I am saying is, let them at least have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution. I will say today, if the Senator from Michigan offers his unanimous consent again I will not object and we will move forward because I want us to move forward. I want us to finish this bill. I want the Defense Department to be able to have something they can count on for the next year. But ask yourself in your heart, how fair is it? We are worried about terrorists and their Bill of Rights but we are not worried about the people who defend our country and their Bill of Rights? Tell me how we got to that point.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, this bill came out of the Veterans' Committee 14 to 0. They had hearings on it. We have done the work. It has been done. It came unanimously out of the Veterans' Committee. There is no question about what is right to do in terms of protecting--this is not about allowing anybody with any mental disease to have a gun. This is about taking the rights of those who do not have a mental disease to have their rights restored.

I do not.

Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes noting why I am against the expansion of the Dale Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act. And it is a great example of where we find ourselves in the country. If you read the Constitution and look at the enumerated powers, we have a Federal program to benefit what is really the responsibility of States. Now, nobody is going to say this isn't a beneficial program to those poor families who might need this. And the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has done a wonderful job in terms of offsetting this so that there is no additional cost, and for that I congratulate him. But this is a great example of why we have $88 trillion in unfunded liabilities and are $16 trillion in debt--because we are doing a function that is truly the responsibility of the States.

The PSOB Program was originally designed, in its original design, to be a model so that the States would set up and demonstrate to them how they could structurally set up their own programs. Over the last 30 years, Congress has continued to expand this program, and now we spend about $81 million to $85 million a year on this program. I am not saying it is not needed money for the families, but we are going to expand a program that is truly not a Federal responsibility.

I have no hopes this will be defeated. I know it won't. But I wanted to raise this question: Given what is in front of us, it is one thing to meet the needs under our Federal requirements for Medicare and Medicaid, but when are we going to stop expanding programs that aren't truly our responsibility? The cause is great. It is appropriate for a government agency to help in times for the people who actually put their lives on the line for us. But is it a Federal responsibility? The answer is no, it is not. It is a State responsibility. As we assume more and more responsibilities for the States, with budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion, what we are going to do is find ourselves at a point where we are going to have to make cuts in programs that are our responsibility.

All I ask you to do is think about whether this is truly a responsibility of the Federal Government and whether we ought to be expanding the program. It is well-intentioned and does great work, I don't discount that. It is well-deserved, I don't discount that. But is it a responsibility of the Federal Government?

I would state to the chairman that I would be happy to have a voice vote on this and not force a vote because I know the outcome and we shouldn't waste everybody's time to do that. So I ask for a voice vote and to vitiate the vote that is scheduled for 6 o'clock.

Mr. President, I ask consent that the following letter be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, the problems in front of our country are not unsolvable. As a matter of fact, every one of them is solvable. Our country has a history of doing hard things. What we lack is leadership to call us to do those hard things. We find ourselves at a point in time when the greatest threat to our Nation is our debt and our economy. We are risking our future, not only our future economically, but our future of liberty. What we have had, I would remind my colleagues, is a history in the Senate of doing hard things. Under the leadership of Senator Reid, the Senate has not attempted to do hard things. What it has attempted to do is abandon the tasks that should be in front of us.

America deserves better. It deserves better leadership. It deserves leadership based on bringing this country together rather than dividing this country. Not having a fiscal plan to solve the greatest issues in front of our country is an absolute failure of leadership. Where is the Senate majority leader's, where is the President's plan to solve our problems?

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

Madam President, I want to spend a few moments this morning talking about the budget point of order. But a bigger topic is we are going to have a vote at noon, and the question, in my mind, is: Will we at some point in the future recognize the hole we are in?

When I talk to individual Members they all agree we are in a hole, we have a problem, and it is getting ready to bite this country in ways that are unimaginable in terms of its impact on the everyday citizens of this country. Yet in the Senate we have done nothing to address the bigger problems facing the country.

Now we have a bill that has a budget point of order that is lying against it, and the question is: Will we continue the behavior that put our country in the problems we are in today or will we take a new track?

The desire to help veterans is a noble desire, but there are a lot of points about this bill that the average American and the average veteran ought to be asking. There are also other questions, such as: What are the other things we are doing for jobs for veterans, and how well are they working.

We have six veterans job training programs. We already have a preference across the Federal Government for hiring veterans. We have SBA programs like crazy. We have contracting programs 8a and 8b. We have all these programs, but not one hearing has been held by the committee of jurisdiction oversight of the job training programs or the other programs we have to enhance the economic well-being of our veterans.

So what we have is a bill that is brought to the Senate floor that has good intentions behind it but shows the absolute laziness of Congress in terms of digging things out.

When the GAO issued its duplication report on the job training programs for veterans, four of them do exactly the same thing. None of them has a metric. So we don't know if they are working, and we haven't held a hearing to find out if they are working. But what are we doing? We are proposing another jobs program for veterans without having done the serious work of how we invest $1 billion.

Now, the other point that we should know is, we are spending $1 billion a year right now on veterans job training programs. This bill has $1 billion over 5. The second point I would like to make--and I think it was made by the ranking member of the Budget Committee--is there is no honest accounting in this bill regardless of the budget point of order or the blue slip, the nonconstitutionality of originating revenue bills in the Senate. There is absolutely no transparency nor correctness nor character nor integrity in the financing of this bill. When we find ourselves $16 trillion in debt and we are going to pay for another bill over 5 years by 10 years of change, we never get out of the problem. We make the problem worse.

What are we doing and whom are we doing it for? Are we truly thinking about veterans when we do not solve the bigger problems? We have the manifest presence in this bill of the very problems we say we need to be addressing. Yet we are making them worse with this bill. We are making the financial problems worse with this bill.

I am befuddled and disappointed that we cannot, as a group of individuals who all love this country very much,

come together on some certain baseline principles that we ought to be operating under in the Senate. The first of those ought to be we ought to do nothing now that makes the problem worse for our kids and grandkids. We are now over $200,000 per family of debt in this country. We are over $200,000--it is actually about $225,000. Think about the median family income over the last 4 years that has gone down 9 percent in this country, and we are going to make sure it goes down even further if we continue to do what we are doing in this bill. We have gone from $54,900 median family to $50,200 in the last 4 years, median family income, and we have gas prices as high as they have ever been and we are going to perpetuate a system that says we are going to continue to make the problem worse, not better.

There is also another little gimmick in this bill that if we were to do it in private, we would go to jail for it; that is, we are going to charge corporations more income tax than what they actually owe to get past 1 year, and then after the year is over, we are going to flip it back so we can say we paid for something when we did not. That violates all aspects of integrity and honesty. Do you know what the answer I hear as to why we are doing it? ``Oh, we have done that in the past.'' It was not right in the past, and it is certainly not right now to lie, to cheat, to be dishonest about the accounting principles surrounding this bill in terms of how we pay for it because, in essence, it violates pay-go--the very rule we said was going to help us get out of our problems that 67 times has been waived in the last 3 years. As a matter of fact, I don't know the last time a pay-go challenge was not waived.

The second principle we ought to be dealing with is we ought to follow the rules we set up for ourselves that are supposed to discipline us in terms of getting our country out of the problems which we are, regrettably, continually ignoring. If, in fact, we want to help veterans get jobs, there are a lot of ways for us to do it. One is make sure the job programs we have are working--and they are not. If they are not working, why are we continuing to spend $1 billion a year on them? No. 2, create a level of confidence in this country, by our own behavior, that we are actually addressing the real problems in front of the country rather than the political dynamics of an election that says we want to do something and everybody in this Chamber knows, even if we pass this bill, it is not going to accomplish anything because, in fact, it has a blue slip against it because of the Constitution.

On Monday mornings when I get up--I get up about 4:30 to catch a flight to come back here--I have noticed I have an attitude problem. I don't want to come anymore. The reason I don't want to come anymore is because we are not doing anything to address the real problems that are in front of our country. We are ignoring the real problems so we can create political contrasts for an election, all the while the country is sinking and sinking and sinking.

What it is is a lack of leadership. We can lead in the wrong direction, knowing what the problems are and making mistakes, and we can be forgiven for that. But when we know what the real problems are and we are ignoring them, that is an unforgivable failure of leadership. That is where we find ourselves.

I heard my colleague mention the Defense authorization bill. There is absolutely no excuse for us not to have passed a Defense authorization bill that gives the planning, the direction, and the commitment for this country's future in terms of our defenses--the No. 1 priority for us as a Congress, according to the Constitution. Yet we have not done that. We have made the immediate political situation trump everything. That is the opposite of leadership. It is actually cowardice, because when someone is a leader and they duck the real problems in front of them, they take everybody down with them--the well intentioned and the not well intentioned. That is where we are--as a country, as a Senate-- by not addressing the real issues of this country.

I don't know what is going to happen on the votes on this bill, but I know what needs to happen in the Senate. There needs to be a renewed sense of awareness of the real problems facing this country and a redoubling of our commitment to shed partisan roles and get down to fixing the real problems in front of us. Parochialism has no place in that discussion. The political careers of Members have no place in that discussion. The real future of our country is at risk and we are, similar to the proverbial person with their head in the sand, ignoring that risk. The greatest country in the world is on the precipice of falling, predicted long ago by such people as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson--that the day would come that we, in fact, would put the political ahead of the best interests of our country. That is what we are seeing played out in Washington. That is exactly what we are seeing played out with this bill. The American people deserve much better.

I yield the floor.

Absolutely. Let me give people some hope. Virginia Foxx, a Representative in the House, who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce and Labor, has passed a bill out of her committee that consolidates 33 of those job training programs into 1, puts metrics on every one of them so we will know if they are working and requires mandatory oversight of them. The reason she did not do all 47 is 14 of them are not in her jurisdiction.

But add to it another $4 billion, and another 20-plus programs for the disabled, so we actually have almost 70 programs and $23 billion a year we are spending on job training, of which nobody knows--as a matter of fact I know they are not working.

We actually released a report on job training in Oklahoma. We looked at every Federal job training and State job training program going on in Oklahoma. Do you know what works? Oklahoma programs. Do you know what does not work? Federal job training programs in Oklahoma.

We have 1 city in Oklahoma that is 16,000 people, 17 Federal job training centers, and an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent; 17 different Federal agencies in 1 city of 16,000 people with an unemployment rate of 4.7 percent. What we are doing is employing people in the job training industry--which may be good if they are having results. But we have results that are untenable.

Job training is just one area of our Federal Government. The GAO has released reports on duplication. Their final report will come in February of next year, where they will have looked at the entire Federal Government. What we know right now is if we did our work, the 100 Senators who care about our country did our work, over the next 10 years we could save $200 billion by eliminating duplication in Federal programs--$200 billion. I said over 10 years; that is, $200 billion per year. It is $2 trillion over 10 years. We could save over $200 billion per year.

We wouldn't be having sequestration if we did our job, if we did our oversight, if we consolidated programs, made them transparent and made them accountable and then put metrics on them to see if they were working and then did oversight to see that they are working. We would not be in sequestration. We would not have near the problems we have today. But the failure is us. The Congress has failed to do its job.

The consequences will not be borne by us. The consequences will be borne by the son of my health LA who was just born, by my new grandson who is

now almost 7 weeks old. That is who is going to pay the consequences-- the children of this country--when we fail to do our jobs.

I appreciate the Senator's leadership. I am going to support his point of order. It is the right thing to do. I did not even talk about the areas he talked about in terms of--we set up this budget agreement for 2 years. I will tell you what, the CR coming--this is the irony of all ironies. Had we not had that budget agreement and we did a CR, we would spend $2.6 billion less next year if we had a clean CR than under the Budget Control Act we passed. By doing the Budget Control Act, we are actually going to spend more money than we did last year.

So everything is upside down in Washington because everything is political or parochial and nobody is thinking long term about the big problems facing our country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would ask to have a back-and-forth real debate on this, recognizing us both, with the Senator from Florida controlling the time, if he has no difficulty agreeing with that.

One of the reasons I came out is I don't agree with the substance of this bill and I don't want the Senator from Florida to make a statement on the floor that everybody agrees with it. We have six veterans job training programs that nobody is overseeing. Nobody knows if they work.

Madam President, my colleague from Florida raises some good points about us wanting to help our veterans. I don't think there is anybody who does not recognize their significant sacrifice. As a matter of fact, it was not long ago that the 45th from Oklahoma lost 17 people in Afghanistan and hundreds were wounded.

The real question is: how do we help them the best? How do we really help veterans? We are going to have plenty of opportunities to say there is a reason to not do the right thing for the long-term best interests of our country.

We have never found ourselves in the predicament we find ourselves in today in terms of our financial exposure and the real risk to the veterans who have jobs today--which nobody is talking about but the real risk for them. Because when this thing goes down--and I am talking about the financial collapse of this country--when it happens, those who have jobs who are veterans today are going to lose them. So there could be no more noble cause than to make an exception for veterans, except that is not what the Senate does. We make an exception every time--every time.

Here is the question for my friend: Under what system of values, honor, and integrity did these veterans serve? The highest and noblest of honor and integrity, without a doubt.

They put their life on the line so I do not have to, so my adult, mature children in their thirties and forties do not have to. The difference is, what they put their life on the line for was to ensure that the freedom and liberty and vibrancy of this country goes forward. We are taking a little pocketknife to one of the legs of the three- legged stool with our actions and slowly nibbling the support of that leg. We are taking it away by our very actions.

If I could finish. Since the other side has the last 7 minutes, I will be finished well before then.

We are going to say the financial condition of the country does not matter. We are going to say it does not matter the $1 billion a year we are spending already on veterans job training programs. It does not matter. We are going to say here is a year's program for jobs for 20,000 veterans and that is going to trump everything else.

You would not have any objection from this Senator if you actually really paid for this, No. 1, if you did not violate pay-go and you truly did it in a way that oversighted the present job training programs we have and you truly did it in a way that matches the integrity and honor of our veterans. But we did not do that. No. We played games. We played games with budget rules. We played games with pay-go. We did not do any oversight. We did not even have a hearing. There was no hearing on this bill.

You took Senator Burr's suggestions, which were common sense, and applied it broadly across the government. But we did not match the honor and integrity and valor and purpose. When I meet with veterans in townhall meetings, I ask them why they serve. Do you know what they tell me? Because this is the greatest country the world has ever known and they want to keep it that way.

What we are doing today does not keep it that way. It perpetuates the same problems that created the very dangerous situation this country is in.

So when we make a claim about that everybody agrees with this bill, I just wish to say I do not agree with the bill. There are a whole lot of ways to help veterans that are better than this, that give them a permanent job. We passed the post-9/11 GI bill; right? They can get paid a stipend while they go to college to learn a new skill, the same as a noncom officer. They get paid for the books and tuition and everything else so they can become whole as they learn a skill. We have the capability for studies while we are in the military. We have six separate job training programs that we are spending $1 billion a year on.

The best way to help veterans is to fix this country's economic situation to create opportunity, and they will fly because they have already proven they have the initiative, the strength, the moral courage, the integrity, and the valor to accomplish anything they want to accomplish.

So I am in disagreement with my friend. I think we have a political device in front of us, and I am going to be very interested to see the character of the Senate on whether it succumbs to the parochial and political over the best long-term interests of the country. If it does, it just proves that the Senate needs to be changed to truly address the real problems in front of our country. That is what it is going to prove, regardless of the outcome: Do we have the character? Do we match the valor, honor, and integrity of the people who serve this Nation in the Armed Forces with our willingness to sacrifice our political careers to do what is in the best long-term interest of the country?

They set the example for us. The question is whether we will follow their example.

I yield to my friend from Florida.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Through the Chair, I would ask the Senator, how did he vote on the tax extender package coming out of the Senate Finance Committee? Because that is the real test of whether the Senator wants to reform the Tax Code. As I recall, the Senator voted for it and I voted against it. There is a very big difference.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Senator McConnell dated September 19, 2012, be printed in the Record.