[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 26, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S223-S246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Franken pertaining to the introduction of S. 2952 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. FRANKEN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3308 to Amendment No. 3299

 (Purpose: To reduce the deficit by establishing 5-year discretionary 
                             spending caps)

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The amendment is proposed by myself and Senators 
McCaskill and Kyl.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself, Mrs. 
     McCaskill, and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 3308 
     to amendment No. 3299.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, our fathers and forefathers made heroic 
sacrifices so that we one day might enjoy the blessings of liberty and 
prosperity. Indeed, we have had prosperity through much of our 
country's history. Their courage during World War II changed the world, 
making possible the greatest run of economic growth in history. The 
character and courage they displayed remains an inspiration to us. And 
there are important lessons to be learned from the way this ``greatest 
generation'' faced adversity.
  We have recently been put to the test ourselves. We were--and in many 
ways continue to be--faced with a national crisis in the form of a 
historic and severe recession. So what did we do? We could have learned 
from President Reagan and Paul Volcker, a Democrat who was then Federal 
Reserve Chairman and is now working with President Obama. They took the 
political heat in the short run so the free market could correct itself 
and emerge stronger on the other side.
  Instead, I think we flinched. We tried to limit the immediate pain by 
mortgaging our children's future. We borrowed hundreds of billions of 
dollars to finance our standard of living today. We took money from the 
future so we can spend it today. We tried desperately to mitigate the 
downturn of a huge economy, even when we know economies are cyclical 
and do have booms and busts.
  Every penny we spent on the stimulus package--$800 billion--and other 
special spending was borrowed and must be paid back. In truth though, 
there is no plan to pay the debt back--only to pay the soaring interest 
for as far in the future as we can see. So this is not an academic 
problem, nor is it just a question of public financing and governmental 
roles.
  As former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said about our debt 
in December--and I think it is a stunning statement--

       The challenge to contain this threat is more urgent than at 
     any time in our history. Our Nation has never before had to 
     confront so formidable a fiscal crisis as is now visible just 
     over the horizon.

  The policies adopted by Congress and the President have set the 
Nation now on a dangerous course of spending and borrowing. The budget 
crisis we face is so severe, the mountain of debt so high, that it 
threatens to undermine the foundation, as Mr. Greenspan said, of our 
economic strength and our prosperity. This is reality.
  For the first time in our Nation's history, our generation stands to 
bequeath to our children a nation that is less economically sound, less 
fundamentally strong, and less secure than that which we inherited. And 
it is not necessary. We can do better if we act today.
  It would be an unthinkable tragedy and really a moral failure for us 
to pass on a less strong country. We have responsibilities not just to 
our own people today but to those who will follow us in the years to 
come, and we would have no one else to blame but ourselves.
  The numbers tell a grim story. In fiscal year 2009, our government 
spent $1.4 trillion more than it took in through revenues. That is the 
largest deficit in our Nation's history, dwarfing those of previous 
years. Scaled to the budget of a typical family, the government 
operated like a household making $50,000 but spending $83,000. That is 
how much more spending we carried out than we had revenues.
  Common sense tells us this is unsustainable, and almost every expert 
you ask would use that very word:

[[Page S224]]

``unsustainable.'' Yet we expect to run deficits over the next decade 
that average nearly $1 trillion annually--averaging that and not going 
down. According to the Congressional Budget Office, in the 8th, 9th, 
and 10th year, the deficit continues to increase.
  By 2019, we will owe our creditors, including nations such as China 
and Japan, more than $15 trillion--three times the total debt of 
America that existed last year. In 2019, the interest payments we will 
make on the debt we owe outside the government--the public debt to 
foreign countries and individuals--will be $799 billion, almost $800 
billion in one year. That will be up from $202 billion in interest 
payments last year. $800 billion is about $200 billion more than we 
spend on defense, and 20 times more than we spend on roads or 
education. We currently spend about $40 billion a year on roads, and 
this interest on the debt will cost us $800 billion a year in 10 
years--a basis of a tripling of our debt.
  That growing interest payment will crowd out our ability to fund 
other important government services, and it will crowd out private 
borrowers who will need to borrow to create jobs.
  Given that we have embarked on such a spending spree, is it any 
surprise that the first item on the Senate agenda this year is the 
necessary bill, they say, to raise the debt limit to allow us to borrow 
more money? We have hit the limit. The government has a limit on the 
amount of debt it can hold by statute, such as a maximum amount on a 
credit card. America's credit card has a $12.4 trillion limit on 
internal and external debt and, incredibly we have maxed it out again. 
It should be a dramatic thing to boost that debt limit, but, 
interestingly, it has become routine.
  This will be the seventh time we have done so in 5 years, and it is 
troubling Americans. The public is rightly angry with Washington's 
cavalier attitude toward spending. They know ``buy now; pay later'' 
catches up with you eventually. They know nothing comes from nothing. 
The American people know that what Stanford University economist 
Michael Boskin wrote in the Wall Street Journal is true. He said:

       The explosion of spending, deficits, and debt foreshadows 
     even higher prospective taxes on work, savings, investment 
     and employment. That not only will damage our economic future 
     but is harming jobs and growth now.

  The American people know that taxes are going to go up, a fact 
confirmed by David Walker, former Comptroller General and GAO head. He 
testified recently that taxes would need to double by 2040 to keep up 
with our current commitments.
  The American people have made it clear they reject the philosophy of 
ever increasing debt. They reject taking on such a burden. Why? Because 
they know it threatens the strength of the American economy. They know 
it is a cloud over our efforts to rebound economically, and they want 
us to stop. They want us to stop.
  To my colleagues, I ask: How much clearer does that message have to 
be? I do not think anyone doubts it. The good news is, many Senators 
are worried on both sides of the aisle. They are concerned about what 
we are doing, and they know we need to do better, and they are 
listening to their constituents. They will have an opportunity this 
week to do that by supporting this bipartisan legislation I have 
offered.
  I see my colleague Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri in the 
Chamber, who is a cosponsor of this legislation that will limit the 
growth of spending. So it is a simple amendment. There are no strings 
attached. It as a rare opportunity to impose budget discipline on a 
Congress that is notorious for not having any.
  That is what makes people angry. Politicians talk a good game but 
nothing seems to change. But when it comes down to it, the politicians 
always seem to find a way to spend more, and the taxpayers end up 
holding the bill. So this amendment would help change that. It would 
impose, first, binding limits on the 40 percent of Federal spending we 
control each year, discretionary spending. The amendment would put into 
law the spending levels approved in the fiscal year 2010 congressional 
budget, which a majority of the Senate supported. It is basically the 
Democratic Congress's budget. It had certain limits over 5 years.

  What we are saying is if you exceed those limits, then you would be 
violating this amendment, which seeks to control and avoid that. Those 
spending levels include only our budget increases that are averaging 
about 2 percent a year annually over 5 years. Contrast that with the 
12-percent increases we saw last year in nondefense discretionary 
appropriations, and the 10 percent the year before.
  Factoring in the stimulus, government spending on nondefense accounts 
actually soared by 57 percent, while State and local governments were 
tightening their belts, some cutting expenses.
  Each year we increase spending it gets built into the baseline of our 
budget for the next year, and when we have an increase in the next 
year, it is an increase on a higher baseline, and it goes up 
exponentially.
  For example, last year, on one bill, the defense bill, there was 
tacked on an $18 billion expenditure for various projects that were not 
paid for within the budget. It was added, paid for with debt--money we 
had to borrow. If we do that each year, if we add another $18 billion 
through that kind of budget-busting activity, it would cost the 
taxpayers an extra $1 trillion over a decade. It is hard to believe, 
but that is true. Mr. President, $18 billion one year goes into the 
baseline; the next year you add another $18 billion, and it is not $18 
billion, it is $36 billion more than you would have spent had the first 
one not been spent.
  I am convinced we can do better. This amendment is an important step.
  Second, the amendment would require 67 votes--two-thirds of the 
Senate--to waive the binding caps. In other words, if we set these 
caps, we can waive them if there is an emergency. But it takes two-
thirds to do so. Two-thirds of the Senate is a strong threshold that 
will keep these caps in place except in times of true emergency.
  Finally, this amendment complements efforts to rein in mandatory 
spending programs that are expected to be insolvent in coming years. 
Social Security runs a surplus now. Medicare did so until the last few 
years. Those surpluses are being spent in our discretionary accounts. 
So these programs have little to do with our record deficits. It is 
discretionary spending, up until recently, that has driven the entirety 
of our debt.
  Deficits for the most part come from discretionary spending, and this 
statutory caps idea I have proposed is tested and proven. The Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1990 included similar provisions that kept the 
growth of Federal spending low for 12 years. Its provisions were 
extended in 1997 because people found they were working. Congress felt 
they were working.
  All in all, these budget rules helped to achieve four balanced 
budgets for 4 consecutive years, from 1998 to 2001. The key component 
of that, I truly believe, was these statutory caps on spending that 
were passed during that period.
  Many currently serving Senators were in this Chamber in the 1990s and 
recognized the necessity. In 1997, 28 currently serving Democrats, for 
example, voted for these provisions, including many of the Democratic 
leaders in the Senate today. I submit that those budget rules are even 
more needed today.
  As Mr. Greenspan said, we have never faced such a fiscal crisis 
looming just over the horizon.
  I am pleased a number of organizations known for their knowledge and 
concern about deficits have recognized the merit of this proposal, 
including the National Taxpayers Union, Committee for a Responsible 
Federal Budget, the Heritage Foundation, and the Concord Coalition.
  Budget experts Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served under a Republican 
administration; Alice Rivlin, who served under the Clinton 
administration at CBO; and Alan Viard also back the plan. President 
Obama, we learned today is now talking about a 3-year freeze on some 
discretionary spending. This legislation would only help him achieve 
that goal because he can make a speech and he can propose it to 
Congress, but it doesn't necessarily become law. If he supports this 
and works to support the statement that we understand he will make in 
the State of the

[[Page S225]]

Union Address, this legislation would be a firewall to make sure his 
promise isn't broken.
  I say this to my colleagues: We have a budget crisis. It is a 
calamity so profound that it threatens our economic security. Americans 
across the country--in red States and blue States--get it. They are 
deeply concerned about the direction in which we are headed. They know 
the crushing debt we are incurring will weaken our country, and it will 
restrict the opportunities our children will have. They are making 
their voices heard.
  A vote against this amendment would be a suggestion that a Senator is 
not serious about maintaining our budget caps but is looking for ways 
to bust the budget, get around the budget, and spend more.
  I urge my colleagues to support the legislation as a strong act of 
fiscal responsibility that will have a good impact. In fact, I am 
confident it would send a message to the financial community that we 
are beginning to get our house in order.
  While I would like to go further and be more frugal in some of our 
behavior around here--and I do believe we are going to have to go 
further than this--this amendment will ensure that the limits on 
spending made last year in the budget passed by this Congress will not 
be exceeded. It will be a firewall that will save us from our excesses. 
It will begin to restore financial responsibility to our Nation, a 
commodity of which we are in desperately short supply.
  I see Senator McCaskill. She has cast a number of tough votes to 
question reckless spending since I have observed her in the Senate. I 
appreciate her leadership and courage in speaking out on this issue. If 
we do this, it will not solve all our problems, but I think it will 
make a positive difference for us. It will allow increases as the 
budget allows for some increases before the firewall kicks in. But it 
also would make it very difficult to break the budget in any 
significant way, unless we face a true emergency.
  I yield the floor and I thank my colleague for her leadership on this 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I acknowledge my colleague, Senator 
Sessions from Alabama, and welcome the opportunity to join him in an 
attempt to restore some sanity in Congress about spending.
  I come from a State where there is a requirement of a balanced 
budget, although, over the last couple years, I am not sure how they 
would have done that without incredible pain if it hadn't been for the 
help the Federal Government sent them. There is no question that the 
fact that we don't have to balance the budget in Washington has led to 
some very bad habits.
  I was thinking about spending over the weekend, as this week there 
are a number of provisions we will debate that I have sponsored or am a 
big supporter of, including the fiscal task force amendment which went 
down this morning by a narrow vote, and obviously pay-go, which I have 
been the lead Senate sponsor on over the last several months. These are 
all things with which we are trying to fight something that you 
encounter all the time as a parent. How much easier it is to say yes 
than no. My kids hate when I give them that lecture because they are 
always wanting me to say yes. I always say the easiest thing to do is 
to say yes--yes, you can have that outfit; yes, you can take my car; 
yes, you can go see your friends, even though I am not sure you 
finished whatever chores you had around the house. It is always easier 
to say I will go along with it, it is a good cause.
  That is what happens around here. It is not like we are spending on 
evil stuff. We are spending on stuff we believe in--education, 
highways, our parks, our military--and we are spending on things that 
make it even harder to say no.
  The time has come that we all have to feel the pain of saying no. We 
all have to be willing to suffer the political consequences of saying 
no. That is why this amendment is such an important step in the right 
direction.
  I want to be honest about this because we have a tendency to make 
things bigger than they are. This isn't going to make a dramatic change 
in the deficit or the debt. I am not sure how many Americans have 
focused on the difference between the two, but they are two different 
things, and it will not make a huge difference. People need to remember 
that if we took out all discretionary spending and decided we were not 
going to spend another dime on education, highways or any of the things 
we decide on spending every year, we will still have a massive deficit 
problem. We don't fix the deficit by passing this amendment. We don't 
fix the deficit by saying we are not going to even do discretionary 
domestic spending anymore. So this is not a fix-all. Do you know what 
it does? It begins to get us well. It is a little like earmarking. Is 
earmarking the huge problem? No. But it is similar to a fever; it is a 
symptom of a disease. This will help us get well.
  It will be a step toward recovery if we can pass this amendment to 
freeze our discretionary spending. I am so pleased the White House has 
called for a freeze. I think this is a wonderful bipartisan moment. I 
think we are all hankering for a good bipartisan moment right now. I 
hope we are all hankering for a good bipartisan moment. I got worried 
this morning on the vote on the fiscal task force because it seemed 
like there might have been some political games being played. I don't 
know about anybody else, but I am hankering for a good bipartisan 
moment. This ought to be one, where Republicans and Democrats set aside 
who looks good and who looks bad, who gets credit and who gets the 
blame, and do something we need to do.
  We used to have a freeze and we used to have pay-go. They were both 
allowed to expire in 2002. I wasn't here. I am not sure why they were 
allowed to expire. Did Congress all of a sudden think we don't need 
pay-go anymore or we don't need limits on discretionary spending 
anymore because we are out of the woods when it comes to the deficit or 
debt? I am not sure why that happened. I know most of the folks who let 
those things expire wish they could take it back. I bet most of the 
folks who did voting for major entitlement programs without paying for 
them during that time--I bet they wish they could take it back because 
now we are in a real mess.
  The first and most important step to get out of this mess is to vote 
to control our spending. I am hopeful this will be passed by a wide 
margin. Some of my friends on the left have said the last thing in the 
world we should do now is limit spending, that government is the answer 
in this difficult recession. I voted for the stimulus, and I think the 
tax cuts in the stimulus, which don't get talked about enough, and the 
help to the States, which doesn't get talked about enough, and the jobs 
that will be created this year are very important to the progress we 
have made in terms of climbing out of the economic hole we found 
ourselves in a year ago.
  But we will not get out of this recession on the back of government 
spending. If we decide it is just about government spending during this 
recession, we are dealing a very bad hand to our grandchildren.
  I hope this amendment passes. I hope it is not even controversial. I 
am so pleased the President is on board, and I am pleased that so many 
members of the Republican party are on board. Let's take this important 
step, and then let's live up to it during the appropriations process. 
Let's realize that pet project at home that we know we can get because 
we can get an earmark--maybe this is the year to say no and push back 
from the table and say all those pet projects, those earmarks, are not 
the right signal we need to send to the American people this year.
  I thank my colleague from Alabama and Senator Kyl, who were 
cosponsors on this. I look forward to wide bipartisan support. I look 
forward to enthusiastic applause tomorrow night in the President's 
State of the Union Address, when he lays out his freeze on spending. We 
are all on board now. Let's make it happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Judd Gregg, former chairman of the Budget Committee and ranking member, 
be added as a cosponsor to this legislation.

[[Page S226]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank my colleague for her fine remarks.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 3303 to Amendment No. 3299

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amended be set aside and I send up amendment No. 3303.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3303 to Amendment No. 3299.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Monday, January 25, 2010, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be divided in the 
form which I now send to the desk.
  I ask at this time that division I of the original amendment be made 
the pending amendment.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. COBURN. I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator from Oklahoma 
still has the floor.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, while the Parliamentarian is doing the 
work that is necessary at this time, I thought I would spend a few 
minutes talking about this amendment in the interest of saving some 
time.
  We have a significant problem in front of us as a Nation. We have 
before us an underlying bill that raises the debt that nobody in this 
room, save the pages, will ever pay a penny toward reducing--nobody 
except the pages and their generation will pay a penny toward reducing.
  This request for increasing the debt limit of $1.9 trillion, I remind 
my colleagues, is $200 billion more than the entire Federal Government 
spent in the year 1999, 10 years ago. So we, in one fell swoop, in 1 
year, we are going to increase the debt by $200 billion more than what 
the entire Federal Government spent 10 years ago.
  The whole purpose behind this amendment is a wake-up call to say: 
Wait a minute, the Congress, in the last 2 years, under its leadership, 
has increased spending 11.4 percent in 2009 and 11.4 percent this year, 
not counting a stimulus bill and not counting omnibus bills that were 
not paid for because they were declared an emergency.
  If we add all that up, excluding the stimulus bill, we had a 28-
percent increase in the size of the Federal Government in the last 2 
years--just in the last 2 years. At that rate, the size of the Federal 
Government doubles over a 5-year period.
  What these amendments are designed to do is to get us doing what 
every American family is doing today; that is, starting to make some of 
the hard choices about where we have excess, where we have 
inefficiency, where we have duplication, and eliminate it because we 
should not ask the American people to take on more debt when we know we 
have at least $387 billion worth of waste, fraud, and duplication every 
year in the Federal Government. Yet that is exactly what we are doing 
with the underlying bill. We are taking on more debt and not doing 
anything about the excessive spending or the waste, fraud, or 
duplication.
  The whole purpose behind coming to the floor is to say: Can we not, 
in light of a 28-percent increase, cut 5 percent in terms of 
discretionary spending that we just jacked up five times that amount 
over the last 2 years? Can we not find 5 percent worth of waste? We 
have identified specifically 640 programs that are duplicative of one 
another in the Federal Government. We have identified waste. When we go 
to find out, when we ask the GAO or the Congressional Research Service 
to help us with this, do you know what they tell us? We cannot; it is 
too big. We cannot tell you where all the duplication is. That is our 
own research bodies saying they cannot tell us where it is too big.
  This amendment puts a stop to that. It mandates that we in the 
future, every year, will get a report from the GAO on every program 
within the Federal Government that duplicates another program and what 
their recommendations are to streamline or change it.
  The reason it is easy to borrow or easy to raise taxes is because we 
fail to do the hard work of eliminating the spending waste. We just had 
the Senator from Alabama wanting to put on some caps. That is not going 
to be adopted. We know it.
  The reason I divided this amendment is because my colleagues will 
take one segment of it and say: Oh, I was for cutting 5 percent out of 
the Federal budget, but I just did not agree with this one segment, 
whether it be education or somewhere else, that we should not cut, and, 
therefore, I voted against the whole amendment.
  This puts the American people in the driver's seat, as far as their 
Senators are concerned. We are going to get to see whether they agree 
that we ought to continue to waste money; that we ought to steal it 
from these pages and their generation and not do the hard work of 
making a choice and putting things in terms of priority like every 
American family is doing.
  Every American family is doing that right now. They do not have an 
unlimited credit card. They do not have the privilege of going to the 
bank when they are tapped out and say: Just give me more money, like we 
are getting ready to do on extending the debt limit.
  The other thing that is in this is leading by example. The Senators 
increased their budget by 5.8 percent this year. We reverse that. Most 
of us can easily live within the budget we had last year--easily. So we 
reverse the increase for the Senate back down to what it was last year.
  We should not ask the rest of this government to make a sacrifice 
that we are not willing to demonstrate by leading on the same issue.
  This bill can be the first step in a reality check of getting the 
Congress back aligned with where the American people are, as far as 
spending.
  Just a year ago, in January of 2009, the national debt was $10.6 
trillion. Today the national debt is $12.2994 trillion. Forty-three 
cents of every dollar we spent last year we borrowed, and we are going 
to do exactly that or worse this next year unless we wake up, unless we 
come to our senses.
  You can have all the arguments you want, but nobody in America 
believes the Federal Government is not wasteful. Nobody believes it is 
good enough to just freeze a small portion of discretionary spending. 
What Americans believe is we need to cut spending. We need to cut out 
the waste, cut out the duplication, and cut out the fraud. We need 
efficiency where we can generate efficiency. We need to eliminate 
duplication where there is duplication.
  My friend, President Obama, when he was campaigning said: I promise 
to spend taxpayer money wisely and to eliminate wasteful redundancy. We 
are going to help him with that. That is what this amendment does. In 
640 programs where there is duplication, we are going to allow an 
incentive for each department to get rid of it. We are not mandating 
they have to get rid of it. We are saying: You should do the review. 
You should take this money, and you should eliminate the duplications. 
What you need from us to do that, we will give you. But we are giving 
you the authority to do that with these amendments.
  Let me quote from President Obama:

       Too often Federal departments take on functions or services 
     that are already being done or could be done elsewhere within 
     the Federal Government more effectively. The result is 
     unnecessary redundancy and the inability of the Federal 
     Government to benefit from economies of scale and integrated 
     streamlined operations.

  He is right. So now we are going to give the Senators a chance to 
support his statement and his position.
  Nothing has been done in the last year to accomplish that. As a 
matter of fact, the President sent program after program that he wanted 
to get rid of. He said they are not effective, they do not work, they 
are duplicative, and they are not efficient. What did we do?

[[Page S227]]

We did not eliminate a one of them. We just kept funding them. So we 
cannot claim that the problems lie with the President. The problems do 
not lie with the President. The problems lie with the elected body of 
Congress in not making the hard, difficult choices of putting a 
priority on what is most important and taking the time to do the 
oversight and explain to the American people why we ought to have the 
programs consolidated. We may have a goal we want to accomplish and 
help the American people with, but we certainly ought to do it in the 
most efficient and effective manner we can.
  The other reason to consider this amendment is to think about what is 
getting ready to happen to us. What is getting ready to happen to us 
over the next 10 years is we are going to accrue another $9 trillion in 
debt if we do not start this process with this amendment today. We are 
going to accrue another $9 trillion. Of that $9 trillion, $4.8 trillion 
of it is going to be interest. It is going to be interest costs on the 
debt. We are going to borrow money to pay the interest on the money 
that we borrow. It does not have to be that way.
  My colleagues will come down and say: The big problem is the 
entitlement programs. There is no question that is two-thirds of our 
problem. But the easy thing to fix now and saves billions, if not 
trillions, of dollars on is the discretionary portion of the budget 
that we do have control over.
  We always hear the excuse: That is not the big problem. The reason it 
is not the big problem is because politicians enamor themselves with 
people at home by spending money we do not have on things we do not 
need that are not truly a legitimate role of the Federal Government.
  The family budget is getting smaller, and the Federal Government is 
getting bigger. That is just exactly the opposite of what ought to be 
happening in this country today. Inflation is near zero, but yet we are 
increasing spending, like I said, 11.7 percent last year. That does not 
include the supplemental emergency spending and does not have any 
connection at all with the stimulus bill. That is what we did with the 
individual budgets across the Federal Government.
  When I come down and make the case for cutting back 5 percent of 
that, which ends up being $120 billion, nobody should be opining: My 
goodness, we are going to tear things up. But we are going to hear 
that. We are going to hear all the reasons we cannot do what I am 
proposing to do.
  America is not going to buy that anymore. They are not buying it 
anymore, and they should not buy it.
  The other thing this amendment will do is it will give us 30 days to 
come back and assess other areas where we can cut more spending. People 
in this body think that is hard. It is not hard. Let me give an example 
of where we can save $80 billion a year in one program.
  At a minimum, there is $100 billion of fraud in Medicare a year. We 
do not have an effective strategy, like any other organization outside 
of government, to limit the defrauding that goes on in Medicare. We 
pay, and then we try to chase people we should not have paid.
  Senator LeMieux from Florida and others have multiple ideas on how we 
could take that $100 billion and over the next 6 months save $30 
billion or $40 billion of that. That is $30 billion or $40 billion each 
year over the next 10 years. That comes out to $\1/2\ trillion, which 
cuts down that $9 trillion in additional debt we are going to be 
encumbering upon our children. Last year, this country's debt grew $4.2 
billion a day. We didn't do anything about that except spend more 
money, so this year it is going to accrue at $4.3 billion a day. That 
is how much we are going to spend that we don't have.

  Isn't it time that we start facing the situation as it is rather than 
the way we would like it to be? The cold hard facts are that we have a 
short timeframe--4 to 5 years at most--to get our house back in order. 
Now is the time to start. It is not next year, it is not next month; it 
is right now--right now, when the American people may or may not be 
focused on the fact that we are going to authorize an additional $1.9 
trillion worth of borrowing. You can't even write that many zeros down 
and have a comprehension of how much it is. At the same time, we don't 
do anything about solving the problem.
  Quite frankly, Congress has a dependency issue. We are addicted. We 
are addicted to spending. We are addicted to the age-old adage that if 
I spend enough money, I can go home and tell people how great I am, not 
ever telling them I am spending their money and their kids' money but 
claiming I am looking out for them.
  The only way you really look out for America is to secure America 
into the future, and we have not been doing that. It hasn't been done 
under the Republican watch, hasn't been done under the Democratic 
watch. What has happened is the same old same old of continuing to 
ignore the problem and not taking the heat for making the tough choices 
that will put our country back on the track on which it belongs--a 
track that will secure a future for our children and grandchildren, 
that will embrace the heritage that made this country great. What was 
that heritage? That heritage was sacrifice. In this country, all of 
us--many--are sacrificing now, and many in the future are going to have 
to sacrifice.
  Others will come down to the floor and they will say: Well, Coburn, 
all you want to do is cut spending; you don't really want to solve the 
problem. Well, the first part of solving the problem is cutting the 
spending and recognizing that the walls don't fall down if you cut 5 
percent out of the discretionary spending in our budget. As a matter of 
fact, very few people will ever notice $120 billion coming out of the 
Federal Government on these discretionary programs because they will 
just go to a different grant program that does the same thing and get 
it there.
  Let me go into some of the facts because many of us don't understand. 
Here are some examples:
  There are 14 programs administered by the U.S. Department of 
Education related to foreign exchanges and designed to increase 
opportunity for students to study abroad. There is nothing wrong 
inherently with wanting our students to study abroad, to gain that 
perspective and to gain that education, but why 14 different programs? 
Why not one? Why not 1 program and save all the administrative costs of 
the other 13? Why not do that? Because somebody may not have their name 
on a program? The fact is, nobody knew that until we discovered it in 
the last 4 weeks.
  There are more than 44 job-training programs administered by 9 
different Federal agencies across the bureaucracy, costing $30 billion 
a year. Forty-four Federal job-training programs? Tell me why we need 
44. Maybe 4 to hit different areas in different situations but not 44 
and not through 9 different Federal agencies that are all trying to do 
the same thing and competing to throw out money.
  What about 69 early education programs administered by 9 different 
Federal agencies. Sixty-nine, why would we tolerate that? Why would we 
continue with the status quo? Now is the time to make changes.
  One of my favorites is that we have 105 Federal programs supporting 
science, technology, engineering, and math--105 different programs 
where we support that--funding over $3 billion a year. I agree we ought 
to encourage it, we ought to stimulate it, we ought to support it 
because we know we have to be competitive in the future, but do we 
really need 105 different Federal Government programs? The answer is, 
absolutely not. We don't. But because we don't know what is there, we 
continue to do the same.
  As a matter of fact, there is going to be a Judiciary markup on 
Thursday that has a new program in it--supposedly new--and the authors 
of the bill have no idea that we already have a Federal program that 
does the same thing. That is why the important key component of this 
global amendment is to make sure the GAO tells us what is out there, 
what we need to do, and how we need to go about it. We may need some 
redundancy, but we don't need 105 times redundancy, we don't need 30 
times redundancy, we don't need 44 times redundancy, and we don't need 
69 times redundancy. As a matter of fact, when we have all these 
programs, the States have to hire all these different people to 
understand all the different programs so they can make sure they get 
their fair share. We could actually save the States a ton of money if 
they

[[Page S228]]

only had one-stop shopping--if, in fact, it is a truly legitimate 
government function.
  The amendment also rescinds unobligated discretionary funds that have 
been available for more than 2 consecutive fiscal years. So it doesn't 
hurt the agencies if the money has been there and they haven't spent 
it. As a matter of fact, we are giving them so much money, they can't 
spend it all. We have seen unobligated balances go up because they 
can't get it out the door. And when we are pushing them to get it out 
the door, guess what happens to efficiency and accuracy and 
effectiveness of those programs. It goes way down.
  According to the Office of Management and Budget, at year end 2009, 
that is, September 30, there was $657 billion sitting in unobligated 
funds. Some of that is military, some of that is war funds, some of 
that is VA. We exempt war funds and we exempt VA. We exempt DOD, but we 
shouldn't because there is $50 billion a year in waste in the Pentagon 
that can easily be demonstrated.
  So we direct the GAO to identify those duplicative programs and 
report to Congress on the findings.
  Madam President, may I make an inquiry of the Chair? Has the status 
of our division been decided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is not divisible as a 
matter of right because the Senate has entered into a unanimous consent 
agreement limiting the universe of amendments on this measure.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the Senators from Alabama and Oklahoma 
have offered that amendment to the debt limit resolution. As these 
amendments address matters primarily for the jurisdiction of the 
Appropriations Committee, I will defer to the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee to address those amendments momentarily.


                       Nomination of Ben Bernanke

  Madam President, in the meantime, on another matter, I wish to say I 
strongly support the nomination of Chairman Ben Bernanke to his second 
term as Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
  Last August, President Obama announced his intention to renominate 
Chairman Bernanke for a second term. There is little debate that our 
financial system has been through one of the most tumultuous times 
since the Great Depression. I strongly support President Obama's 
decision to renominate Ben Bernanke and believe he has the expertise to 
continue to lead this country out of one of the worst economic 
downturns in history.
  Chairman Bernanke graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University, 
earning a bachelor's degree in economics. He continued his studies at 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received a Ph.D. in 
economics. He then had the good sense to head to Stanford, my alma 
mater, where he taught economics for several years at the Graduate 
School of Business. After heading back to Princeton University, he 
quickly rose through the academic ranks to become chairman of the 
Princeton Economics Department. His groundbreaking economic work on the 
Great Depression helped increase our understanding of that calamity and 
prepared him well to tackle our recent disaster. He has a strong record 
of public service, including work as a visiting scholar at several 
Federal Reserve banks.
  In 2002, President George W. Bush appointed him to serve on the Board 
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. In 2005, President Bush 
appointed him Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. 
In 2006, President Bush appointed him Chairman of the Federal Reserve. 
The Senate confirmed his nomination by voice vote. After his 
appointment to three posts by President Bush, Ben Bernanke was 
renominated as Federal Reserve Chairman in 2009 by President Obama.
  At this point, I might point out that if any Senator had any problems 
with the reappointment of Chairman Bernanke, they certainly knew when 
his term expired and they should have conveyed those views to President 
Obama, and conveyed them strongly if that was their view, so that 
President Obama would have had an opportunity to appoint somebody else 
if that was his choice. It is my understanding that virtually no 
Senator complained to President Obama about the renomination of 
Chairman Bernanke before the nomination was sent to the Senate.
  In his nearly 4 years as Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke has 
demonstrated he is worthy of another term. Facing the worst financial 
calamity in nearly 70 years and relying on his keen insight into the 
origins of financial panics, he successfully worked with the previous 
and current administrations to ensure that the economy of the United 
States and the world survived the crisis of 2008.
  Again, his dissertation was on the Great Depression. This is a man 
who understands the Great Depression and probably had some pretty good 
ideas of how to prevent that from occurring. Averting disaster is not 
something that usually earns you accolades or parades. ``It could have 
been worse'' is not your typical commendation. But there is no doubt 
that without Chairman Bernanke's leadership, our economy would have 
been much worse off.
  Time will tell how the history of this crisis is written, but 
economists and experts believed then and still today that the Federal 
Government could not stand by and let the financial system collapse. 
Liquidity in the markets evaporated. Small businesses could not obtain 
the day-to-day cash to buy inventory or make payroll. Foreclosures 
increased from hundreds to hundreds of thousands. Americans across the 
country witnessed their retirement savings dwindling before their eyes. 
Confidence in the system as a whole vanished.
  Beginning in 2008, Chairman Bernanke began to take a series of steps 
to walk us back from the brink of disaster. The Federal Reserve cut 
interest rates early and aggressively in an attempt to inject liquidity 
into the markets. I might point out that there were some who counseled 
the opposite action; that is, those most concerned about inflation. 
Perhaps Bernanke went too far in trying to inject liquidity back into 
the markets, but that is what he believed was necessary in order to get 
the economy back on track. The Fed established lending facilities to 
provide much needed funding. Last year, the Fed, in conjunction with 
the Department of Treasury, established the Term Asset-Backed 
Securities Loan Facility, TALF, to finance more than 4 million consumer 
and small business loans. That is sometimes forgotten, but that is 
something he did. At a time when conditions were changing daily and 
sometimes hourly, Chairman Bernanke did not hesitate to take bold and 
necessary steps to avoid total collapse of our economy.
  Madam President, 20/20 hindsight will always reveal things we would 
have done differently. With such aggressive and unprecedented action 
comes criticism and judgment.
  Without a doubt, the Federal Reserve System deserves a share of the 
blame for fostering the conditions that led us to the precipice, but as 
this crisis was systemic, so, too, were its flaws.
  On that point, I might say there are a lot of agencies that probably 
should be blamed or held accountable for some of the missteps or 
failure to foresee the crisis occurring. One that comes to my mind is 
the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities and Exchange 
Commission either did not have jurisdiction or didn't ask for 
jurisdiction or did not exercise jurisdiction over a lot of the 
nonbanks that were creating a lot of these fancy derivatives and other 
instruments. I can name many of them. I think we all know who they are. 
It was a lack of effort by the SEC. I think the SEC was derelict in not 
being much more aggressive at that time.
  There are a lot of areas where fingers can be pointed. One can be the 
Congress. Where were the oversight committees at that time? What were 
the questions they were asking? What were they doing?
  I think, frankly, that mistakes were made, many of them, beginning 
with the subprime mortgage crisis and working all the way up to 
mortgage

[[Page S229]]

brokers packaging and reselling loans and securitizing those loans and 
then all the other instruments that were developed at the time, and 
very high leverage. That was a big mistake made before Ben Bernanke was 
head of the Fed.
  It is more apparent than ever that we must pass strong and 
comprehensive regulatory reform, to crack down on risky financial 
derivatives, properly regulate the shadow banking system, and ensure 
consumers are adequately protected. In his confirmation hearing, 
Chairman Bernanke stated that such a crisis ``must prompt financial 
institutions and regulators alike to undertake unsparing self-
assessments of their past performance.''
  Chairman Bernanke is doing just that. The Federal Reserve has already 
undergone significant regulatory changes, and he is committed to 
working with me and my colleagues in Congress to put in place proper 
oversight and transparency to see that we are never again faced with 
the peril we have witnessed over the past 2 years.
  But as Emerson once said, ``[b]lame is safer than praise.'' I commend 
Chairman Bernanke and his team at the Federal Reserve for acting in a 
time of such uncertainty. There is still much that must be done to get 
our economy back on track and Americans back to work. I believe that 
Chairman Bernanke and the Federal Reserve will continue efforts to 
create jobs and help middle class families. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting Chairman Bernanke's nomination for his second 
term, as he works to restore confidence and prosperity in our economy.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3303

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Coburn 
amendment to eliminate wasteful and duplicative spending. Before my 
colleague from Oklahoma leaves the floor, I know he has to go, but I 
have to pose a question for the Senator from Oklahoma. We have a 
listing in the Senator's amendment of the many duplicative programs.
  Have we had a study that would indicate how many government employees 
are engaged in administering these duplicative programs?
  Mr. COBURN. No. To answer the Senator's question, we do not even know 
how many duplicative programs there are out there. These are the 640 we 
found looking over a 4-week period.
  But when we asked GAO or the Congressional Research Service about 
this, what they say is the task is too big. They do not even know if 
they can accomplish the task, which goes to the enormity of the problem 
we face.
  I mentioned on the Senate floor earlier, we have a markup tomorrow in 
the Judiciary Committee for a new program, and it is duplicative of an 
existing program. But those offering the amendment do not even know it. 
So it shows we have to stop and reassess. Part of this amendment is 
creating a mandate that the GAO has to advise us on that.
  Mr. McCAIN. I do believe that at least we ought to, over time, make 
an attempt to ascertain the numbers of employees who are in these 
duplicative government programs. It is really startling--if the 
American people knew of the fact that there are so many duplicative 
efforts and different agencies of the government trying to accomplish 
the same mission.
  Before I go much further, I would like to mention, I have the 
information that tomorrow night the President will propose a spending 
freeze for discretionary spending with the exception of defense, 
veterans affairs, and homeland security. I applaud that move on the 
part of the President.
  I think, from the conclusions I have reached so far, it would save 
some $15 billion next year and perhaps $200 billion over time. We are 
trying to ascertain exactly what that is.
  But I do not see how the President, at the same time that he is 
recommending a spending freeze that would save some $12 or $15 or $20 
billion next year, at the same time to be proposing a stimulus package, 
another one, that could be $80 or $100 billion. That is not fiscal 
discipline.
  The House, the other body, passed, before we went out of session, a 
jobs bill that was somewhere around $100 billion, as I understand it. I 
understand the other side of the aisle is working on a package of about 
$80 billion. Well, look, let's stop the spending now. Let's stop the 
spending now.
  So if we want to be sincere about stopping the spending that is 
unnecessary and unneeded, then we certainly should discard the idea 
that we need another massive stimulus, particularly in light of the 
fact that by any estimation, including the prediction of the 
President's economic advisers that if we passed the last stimulus 
package, unemployment would be at 8 percent.
  So this proposal about a spending freeze would have a lot more 
credibility with me if we said we are going to stop additional spending 
this year that would also add to the burgeoning national debt.
  The Coburn amendment is an important one. The Coburn amendment is 
best appreciated by the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves. In 
a recent editorial in the Houston Chronicle, they noted:

       Our spending excesses, as most every American knows, are 
     increasingly financed by foreign sources led by China. In 
     all, about $4.5 trillion in U.S. debt is held by foreigners 
     and nearly $800 billion of that is held by the Beijing 
     government.

  So we will increase the debt limit, and who is going to buy that 
debt? Apparently, the Chinese are buying a lot of it since they own, 
according to the Houston Chronicle, about $800 billion, and foreign 
countries own about $3.5 trillion.
  On December 16, the Wall Street Journal wrote:

       Our view is there is good and bad public borrowing. In the 
     1980s, Federal deficits financed a military build-up that 
     ended the Cold War leading to an actual peace dividend in the 
     1990s of 3 percent of GDP, as well as tax cuts that ended the 
     stagflation of the 1970s, and began 25 years of prosperity. 
     Those were high-return investments. Today's debt is financing 
     what exactly? The TARP money did undergird the financial 
     system for a time, and is now being repaid. But most of the 
     rest has been spent on a political wish list of public 
     programs ranging from unemployment insurance to wind turbines 
     to tax credits for golf carts. Borrowing for such low-return 
     purposes makes America poor in the long run.

  So if we are increasing the debt limit, and the Chinese and other 
countries are going to buy that debt, and we are spending money in the 
stimulus package that has shown very little return on the massive $787 
billion investment, then should we not try Dr. Coburn's method and 
support his amendment which would basically prevent us from having to 
increase the debt limit?
  This amendment of Dr. Coburn's would rescind $120 billion in 
spending, 5 percent from each agency of government, other than the 
Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs; directing the agencies to 
consolidate more than 650 duplicative government programs; rescind 
unobligated discretionary funds available for more than 2 consecutive 
fiscal years. Most Americans would be astonished to know that there are 
still tax dollars sitting out there which have been appropriated and 
not been spent for more than 2 years, sometimes several years.
  Directing GAO to identify duplicative government programs and report 
the findings to Congress would render the debt limit increase in the 
underlying bill null and void. It is $1.9 trillion.
  Let's just look at a few of the duplicative Federal programs that are 
out there. A 2004 report by a nonprofit research group listed 21 
Federal programs across multiple agencies, many at Health and Human 
Services that funded childhood obesity programs either as the main 
focus or as one component of the Federal program.
  Child obesity is a serious issue in America. Do we need 21 separate 
programs to address the issue? Would not we be more efficient if we had 
a single program instead of spreading them out amongst different 
Federal agencies?
  There are 14 programs administered by the U.S. Department of 
Education related to foreign exchanges and designed to increase the 
opportunities for

[[Page S230]]

study abroad, 14 programs. According to a 2003 GAO report, the Federal 
Government funds more than 44 job training programs administered by 
nine different Federal agencies across the Federal bureaucracy at a 
cost of $30 billion.
  According to data from the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, 14 
departments within the Federal Government and 49 independent agencies 
operate exchanges and study abroad programs.
  A 2009 GAO report found 69 early education programs administered by 
nine different agencies. There are over 30 Federal programs that 
provide financial assistance to students to support postsecondary 
education at a cost to the taxpayer of over $30 billion every year.
  According to a May 2007 report in the Academic Competitiveness 
Council, there are 105 Federal programs supporting STEM education with 
aggregate funding of $3.2 billion in 2006. You will note that I am not 
even talking about millions or hundreds of millions; we are talking 
about billions.
  Here is one. There are at least 17 offender reentry programs across 
five Federal agencies, different Federal agencies, costing the 
taxpayers over $250 million annually.
  A 2005 GAO study found there are a total of 23 Federal housing 
programs targeted or have special features for the elderly, 23 Federal 
housing programs that target or have special features for the elderly.
  There are at least nine programs at the USDA tasked with researching 
and developing biofuels, costing taxpayers nearly $300 million 
annually. Over $800 million was included in the stimulus bill for these 
initiatives.
  The Federal Government oversees at least 15 different preservation 
programs costing taxpayers nearly $100 million annually.
  There are at least 28 Federal programs totaling over $5 billion that 
support job training and employment.
  Here we are, with an outstanding public debt well over $12.3 
trillion. The estimate for this year is the largest in history. The 
estimated population of the United States is over 307.6 million people. 
Therefore, each U.S. citizen's share of this debt is approximately 
$40,100. That is $40,000 for every man, woman, and child in this 
country. That is shameful, shameful spending that has laid this debt on 
future generations of Americans. The greatness of America is based on 
the tradition that one generation has passed off to the next generation 
a nation that is better off than the one they inherited. What kind of a 
nation are we going to hand off to the next generation of Americans 
with a debt to the Chinese of $800 billion, a debt of over $3.5 
trillion held by foreigners, and the debt goes on and on and on with no 
end in sight.
  Why should we not try Dr. Coburn's method? Why should we not attempt 
to do something different rather than raising the debt limit every time 
we have spent so much we have to raise it again?
  Let's look at what we spent last year alone: $787 billion on the so-
called stimulus bill which amounts to $1.1 trillion, if you calculate 
the interest; $700 billion in TARP to bail out the banks and other 
ailing financial institutions; $410 billion for the Omnibus 
appropriations bill, a package of 9 appropriations bills rolled 
together, which contained over 9,000 unrequested, unnecessary, run-of-
the-mill pork-barrel earmarks; $450 billion for the 2010 Omnibus 
appropriations bill, a package of 6 bills rolled together, containing 
5,000 unrequested earmarks. Let's put them together. In two bills last 
year, one for 2009, the other for 2010, were at least 14,000 earmarks. 
The Democratic leadership worked with the President to ram through a 
$3.5 trillion budget resolution. We have spent $83 billion to bail out 
the auto companies. There is still a chance that a $2.5 trillion health 
reform bill may be passed by the other side.
  Overall, domestic spending has increased by 14 percent over the last 
fiscal year. Inflation has been practically zero for all intents and 
purposes. But the spending has increased by 14 percent. Don't we get 
it? Don't we see what we are doing to future generations of Americans? 
Don't we see that a debt for $40,100 for every man, woman, and child in 
America is unconscionable? Why don't we try the Coburn amendment before 
we willy-nilly increase the debt limit by another $1.4 trillion? Why? 
Why can't we at least make an effort?
  One thing I know about Dr. Coburn, he researches his information 
carefully. He has shown us we don't need to raise the debt limit and 
give ourselves a green light to spend even more. We have before us an 
opportunity. We can turn things around today. We can pass this 
amendment and begin the hard work and make the tough decisions 
necessary to put us on the path to fiscal solvency and national 
prosperity.
  Here we are with a bill before us to increase the debt limit which 
would increase, then, the debt that every man, woman, and child in 
America has, as we continue this almost unrestrained spending spree.
  I have said to my colleagues for a long time--and I think it was 
authenticated in Massachusetts recently--the American people are mad. 
They are angry at the spending. They do not want to lay a huge debt on 
future generations of Americans. They do not believe there is a shred 
of fiscal responsibility in the Congress or the administration. I will 
fairly note that this out-of-control spending was not invented with 
this administration. Republicans, when they were in charge, let 
spending get completely out of control. We betrayed our fiscal base. We 
paid a heavy price for it, but we deserved to pay that price. Now is 
the time to say stop, stop borrowing against our children and 
grandchildren's futures. Stop putting ourselves in a precarious 
situation, where the Chinese own so much of our national debt that they 
have their hand on the throttle of the American economy.
  I hasten to add, it is not in China's interest to hurt the American 
economy. But it certainly can't be in our interest, in any way, to be 
in that kind of fiscal jeopardy. We cannot do that--not to mention the 
$3.5 trillion in debt held by foreigners.
  I say to my colleagues, let's look at the Coburn amendment. It is 
well thought out, well researched. Let's put the brakes on the 
mortgaging of America's future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Christmas Day Terrorist Attack

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I had the benefit last week of attending 
two different hearings on the attempted terrorist attack that took 
place on Christmas Day. The first was in the Homeland Security 
Committee and the second was in the Commerce Committee. One thing 
became clear: There is a definite disconnect in this administration 
about how to handle terrorists once they are captured. Over this last 
weekend, Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the foiled 
Christmas Day bomber terror attack. He has, once again, inserted 
himself into the national security dialog in the United States.
  I fear al-Qaida will have another opportunity to attack the United 
States because of the fumbling of intelligence information that could 
have been gathered on the Christmas Day bomber before his attempted 
attack and subsequently from this terrorist after he was captured. But 
this administration clearly dropped the ball. We know the Director of 
National Intelligence, Dennis Blair; FBI Director Mueller; National 
Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter; and the Homeland 
Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, were not consulted about the 
decision to read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights and try him in 
civilian courts. We know that as soon as this terrorist was told of his 
right to remain silent, that is what he did. He stopped talking.
  It is unfathomable that these individuals were not even consulted 
before this hugely important decision was made. After the hearings 
conducted last week and interviews over the weekend, it appears it was 
ultimately the Attorney General who made the decision to read the 
Miranda rights and place Abdulmutallab in the civilian court system. 
However, there is a lot of ambiguity to show how this decision came to 
be made. Were there any deliberations or meetings that occurred prior 
to this decision? Was the President brought into this discussion? All

[[Page S231]]

these ambiguities need to be cleared up so we do not make the same 
mistakes again.
  As a member of one of the committees charged with oversight of 
homeland security, I will be asking for a written response from the 
administration on this issue.
  Additionally, because the heads of government agencies charged with 
making the decisions do not seem to be talking, I have joined with 
several of my Senate colleagues to cosponsor legislation authored by 
Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, the distinguished ranking member 
and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. This legislation would 
require the Attorney General to consult with the Director of National 
Intelligence, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Defense prior to 
the initiation of giving any terrorist Miranda rights or the initiation 
of civilian criminal charges against a foreign person detained by the 
U.S. Government on suspicion of any terrorist activities. The 
legislation would also require, in the event of a disagreement amongst 
these folks on whether such action should be initiated in civilian 
criminal court, that the Attorney General not initiate such action 
unless specifically directed by the President. I ask my other Senate 
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this vital legislation.
  A second thing we learned from last week's hearings was there is 
confusion about when the high-value interrogation group or the HIG 
should be convened to decide on whether to interrogate terrorists such 
as Abdulmutallab or to interview them with their lawyers present. 
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Homeland 
Security Committee:

       This unit was created exactly for this purpose--to make a 
     decision on whether a certain person who is detained should 
     be treated as a case for Federal prosecution or for some 
     other means.

  The intelligence chief said the interrogation group was created by 
the White House last year to handle overseas cases but will now be 
expanded for domestic cases.
  He said:

       We did not invoke the HIG in this case. We should have.

  Subsequently, we heard from the administration that this HIG unit 
isn't even up and running yet.
  My question is, How does the individual who is in charge of our 
intelligence infrastructure not know the policy and procedures for 
interrogating terrorists? Based on the testimony given last week, it 
would seem we do not have a fully integrated and comprehensive method 
for interrogating terrorists, whether they are captured abroad or here 
at home. The capture and subsequent handling of terrorist Abdulmutallab 
was bungled from the get-go. It is continuing to be bungled.
  A week ago, I signed a letter to President Obama with a number of my 
colleagues indicating that the decision to prosecute this terrorist in 
civilian court has resulted in a missed opportunity to collect timely 
intelligence. In order for the U.S. Government to fully understand 
where we failed on Christmas Day, it is imperative we examine the 
methods and means Abdulmutallab used to avoid detection.
  As many of my colleagues have pointed out, our ability to gather this 
information has been severely hampered by the decision to put this 
terrorist almost immediately into the civilian court system. He now has 
all the rights, protections, and privileges of American citizens. Make 
no mistake about it, this decision to try Abdulmutallab as a U.S. 
citizen, which he is not, as opposed to an enemy combatant will be a 
detrimental impact on our ability to learn more about this failed 
terrorist attack. Taking it a step further, this decision may very well 
weaken our national security. Last week, the Republican leader 
mentioned that a year ago the President, immediately after taking 
office, decided to revise the Nation's interrogation policies and to 
restrict the CIA's ability to question terrorists.
  This was done by Executive order. While questioning the Director of 
National Intelligence, I specifically asked if the Director believed 
the classified interrogation methods used previously by our own 
government were more effective than the current methods found in the 
Army Field Manual that is publicly available for the terrorist to train 
to.
  One statement the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, made 
during the Q-and-A portion of the hearing particularly caught my 
attention. In response to a question from Senator Burris regarding al-
Qaida's ability to exploit open source intelligence, Admiral Blair 
stated this--I am quoting, once again:

       [T]he public discussion of the specifics of the defensive 
     measures we take are making it that much easier for people to 
     evade our defenses and come in . . . I think they are just 
     making the job of those who are working hard to try to defend 
     us that much harder. It costs the taxpayer that much more 
     money. And I wish people would just shut the hell up.

  That is what he said.
  So if keeping some of our airport security measures a secret makes it 
harder for terrorists to evade them, shouldn't that same logic also 
hold that keeping some of our interrogation measures classified also 
makes it harder for the terrorists to beat those interrogation 
techniques? But this administration does not seem to be on the same 
page.
  As I am sure you can imagine, those who wish to do us harm can simply 
train to the methods that are publicized in this public document. By 
limiting our intelligence community to only those techniques in the 
Army Field Manual, we have removed one important tool the intelligence 
community has to use against al-Qaida; that is, fear of the unknown.
  Terrorists now know exactly what our interrogation methods and 
limitations are, and based on that knowledge they can train and prepare 
themselves to successfully resist our interrogation efforts.
  I am also concerned that the administration may begin to bargain or 
propose a plea deal to this terrorist, Abdulmutallab, in order to 
obtain additional information. I believe this would set a very 
dangerous precedent for would-be terrorists in order to potentially 
have their jail time reduced. It is my understanding the policy of the 
United States is not to negotiate with terrorists.
  We should comprehensively and effectively interrogate terrorists to 
gain the information we need, not to negotiate with them for it. The 
only true way to gather this information is through an extensive 
interrogation of the terrorist by highly trained intelligence 
personnel. The definition of an ``extensive and comprehensive 
interrogation'' is not a 50-minute questioning while the terrorist is 
being prepped for surgery, as was the case with Abdulmutallab.
  Extensive interrogations are conducted over a sustained amount of 
time, with members of various government agencies included. They 
incorporate individuals from defense intelligence and have elements of 
uncertainty and surprise. This means those conducting the 
interrogations are not limited to a set of interrogations which the 
terrorist has trained against. In short, a proper and extensive 
interrogation should not solely consist of the interrogation methods 
listed in the Army Field Manual.
  We have in our custody an individual who has been trained by al-
Qaida. He has met with some of its most senior leaders and has not been 
properly and comprehensively interrogated. How is this possible? He 
could give us information on the al-Qaida command-and-control 
structure. It is possible he could give us information on funding 
mechanisms, ongoing operations, safe houses, personnel and leadership 
profiles, al-Qaida's governmental connections in Yemen and maybe other 
Middle East nations, and what the enemy views as weaknesses in our 
airport security.
  What happens if, say, new information comes to light; say, Osama bin 
Laden releases a new tape like he just did, or if we intercept some 
communication coming out of Yemen? As it stands now, we have lost the 
ability to interrogate Abdulmutallab on those issues.
  Over the weekend, we heard a preposterous statement from the 
President's spokesman when he said the FBI got all the information they 
could get out of him. That is a preposterous statement. I do not 
believe that to be the case, and I do not believe most Nevadans or 
other Americans believe it either.
  It is for these reasons we must transfer Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to 
the

[[Page S232]]

military and remove the Executive order restrictions that requires our 
intelligence community to follow only the Army Field Manual when 
interrogating a terrorist. It is in the best interests of the security 
of the United States to do so.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                           Amendment No. 3303

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to an 
amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. Once again, we find 
ourselves debating an amendment that at first blush sounds like a good 
thing. But when Members take the time to actually read the amendment 
and understand the programs it impacts, they will discover this 
amendment causes harm to our national and international security and to 
our economy.
  Let me begin by discussing the last section of the amendment, section 
16. Section 16 of the Coburn amendment is based on assumptions that 
reflect a lack of understanding about both what constitutes 
discretionary unobligated balances as well as about Federal funding and 
oversight for certain critical procurement programs.
  The Senator from Oklahoma claims that $100 billion would be rescinded 
from an estimated $657 billion in unobligated balances. First, this 
amendment assumes a rescission amount based on erroneous assumptions. 
Specifically, the majority of the $657 billion in unobligated balances 
would not be eligible for rescission under criteria outlined in the 
amendment because they are either mandatory funds or they are not older 
than 2 years.
  Second, because of the small amount of unobligated funding eligible 
for rescission, this amendment indiscriminately rescinds prior year 
unobligated funding from certain critical programs, jeopardizing our 
national defense, our homeland security, our economy, and the well-
being of our citizens.
  For example, we require the Department of Defense to budget up front 
for all the costs required to procure military equipment, such as ships 
or aircraft. But I think all of us are aware it takes several years to 
complete construction.
  For shipbuilding specifically, funds provided to the Department of 
Defense are available for obligation for 5 years. Rescinding 
unobligated funds would now require the Navy to cancel contracts for 
ships under construction and lay off thousands of workers across the 
Nation's shipyards.
  In terms of our veterans who have returned from war or have fought 
bravely in past wars, section 16 also severely impacts the construction 
of new hospitals by the Veterans' Administration.
  Like for defense procurement, the VA requests full funding for the 
construction project in the first year. As a result, the Veterans' 
Administration has 43 active major construction projects at various 
stages of completion, totaling over $1.6 billion in unobligated 
balances. Over 49,000 construction jobs would be terminated with the 
loss of this funding, further delaying critical services to our brave 
men and women who have served us.
  Rescinding unobligated balances in the Department of Homeland 
Security would stop the construction of the Coast Guard National 
Security Cutter and would rescind funding for the purchase of explosive 
detection systems.
  Rescinding unobligated balances in NOAA would create a minimum 6-
month gap in coverage for the geostationary weather satellite system, 
which focuses directly over the United States, and constantly and 
accurately monitors storm conditions. Over 200 employees would lose 
their jobs.
  The reasoning for the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is a 
catch-22 for those of us on the Appropriations Committee with 
responsibility for overseeing our taxpayers' dollars. We are criticized 
for having funding that is unobligated for more than 1 year. Well, a 
ship is not built in a year, a hospital is not built and equipped in a 
year, and the next generation satellite is not built in 1 year.
  The Coburn amendment proposes to rescind an additional $20 billion 
from programs he perceives to be redundant. We can go around and around 
about what is redundant and what is not because one's perception of 
what is or is not a duplicative program is based on subjectivity. It is 
that simple, and this amendment reflects what the Senator from Oklahoma 
alone believes is redundant. But what is clear is that this amendment 
proposes to cut $20 billion in funding that the Congress voted on and 
agreed to provide just months ago.
  The impact of these cuts has significant consequences for many 
critical services. For example, the Senator's amendment proposes that 
the intent is to consolidate duplicative programs serving the homeless. 
However, in reality, this language simply calls on the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development to implement a 5-percent reduction across 
the Department's programs. The bulk of the funding increase recently 
provided by Congress to HUD covers the increasing cost of providing 
affordable housing to our Nation's low-income citizens. According to 
HUD's Annual Homeless Assessment Report, on any given night there are 
over 650,000 people who are homeless. However, HUD's resources fund 
183,000 beds. During this difficult economic time, it is not the time 
to cut housing for the Nation's poorest individuals.
  This amendment also takes aim at nursing education programs, claiming 
they are duplicative, when in fact they are not. While there are 
several programs that promote nursing education, each of these programs 
addresses different needs in our Nation's effort to address a profound 
nursing shortage. We have a loan repayment program to get nurses to 
rural areas, a program to incentivize nurses to teach, and a program to 
expand nurse training in geriatric care.
  The amendment instructs the Secretary of the Interior to consolidate 
programs for dealing with the impacts of climate change. The truth is, 
each of the three agencies named by the Senator deal with a different 
aspect of climate change, and each brings a special expertise to the 
problem. They are not duplicative; they are complementary based on 
specific expertise.
  For the Department of Energy, the Building Technologies Program is 
not a grant program to weatherize existing residential and commercial 
buildings in the same fashion as the weatherization program does for 
residential homes. There is a difference between a residence and a 
building. It is a research and development program aimed at new 
technologies. There is simply not overlap or duplication in these 
programs.
  The amendment proposes to rescind funding for the 2010 census. Any 
reduction in funding for the constitutionally mandated 2010 census at 
this critical time would jeopardize the completion of a timely and 
accurate count, which is necessary, sir.
  The amendment proposes to cut $2.2 billion from critical Department 
of Homeland Security programs.
  The attempted destruction last month of Northwest flight 253 near 
Detroit is our most recent reminder that terrorists continue to 
threaten our homeland and the security of all Americans. This amendment 
would reduce funding for the purchase of explosive detection equipment 
at the very time the Department of Homeland Security Secretary has 
asked us to address the need for further increases in airport security.
  In closing, the author of this amendment arbitrarily rescinds funding 
with no true justification. The rescission of $100 billion from the 
$657 billion in unobligated balances, as we know, would wreak havoc on 
ongoing procurement. The rescission of $20 billion is based on the 
claim of redundancy in programs where no redundancy exists.
  This is a bad amendment with bad consequences. It is time for Members 
to act responsibly. We have a well-established process for funding the 
Federal Government. It involves a Budget Committee that sets our 
allocations and involves the consideration and approval by the Senate 
of every appropriations bill. It is not passed in the dark of night.
  I can assure my colleagues in this Chamber that the Appropriations 
Committee takes its responsibilities seriously, and every agency budget 
is reviewed and oversight is provided throughout the year. Each year, 
the Appropriations Committee recommends rescissions of funds that are 
not needed. But those rescissions are based on detailed oversight and 
understanding of the programs, not indiscriminate action.
  This amendment is not based on careful review and would harm many

[[Page S233]]

worthwhile programs, and it fails to meet the test of proper oversight. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3308

  I will also speak on another amendment. I will speak in opposition to 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions.
  We are all concerned with the growth of the deficit and the need to 
control the debt of the United States. I support that goal, as I 
imagine all of us in this Chamber support the goal. None of us disputes 
the ultimate threat to the standard of living of our citizens posed by 
long-term deficit spending.
  However, the amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama is not the 
appropriate way to attack the issue, for several reasons. As I 
understand the amendment, it would have the effect of freezing any 
increases in nondefense discretionary spending for the next 5 years.
  In addition, the amendment would impose caps on emergency spending 
that could potentially cripple our ability to respond to emergencies, 
such as hurricanes, earthquakes, or terrorist attacks.
  The amendment also contains unrealistic spending caps that would 
restrict funding needed to support our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Let's start with the facts. For fiscal year 2010, the government 
spent $2.9 trillion, of which about $1.2 trillion was discretionary. 
The remaining $1.7 trillion we declare as being mandatory. Of the $1.2 
trillion that was discretionary, approximately $526 billion, or less 
than half, was for nondefense purposes. Therefore, this amendment 
attempts to reduce the deficit of the United States by constraining 18 
percent of total government spending. If the goal is to reduce 
government spending, I am unclear on how constraining growth on just 18 
percent of that spending will be at all effective.
  In addition, if we examine the actual numbers involved here, it 
becomes even clearer that this amendment will simply not achieve its 
stated goal. From fiscal years 2006 to 2009, the Federal debt was 
increased by approximately $4.4 trillion. During that time, the total 
increase in nondefense discretionary spending was approximately $93 
billion, as compared to $4.4 trillion.
  Doing the math, for the past 4 years, the increase in nondefense 
discretionary spending has accounted for 2 percent of the increase in 
the national debt--just 2 percent.
  What do we get for this 2-percent savings? Aside from the obvious 
challenge of funding vital government programs without even an 
adjustment for inflation, we also put our country and our citizens at 
risk.
  Arbitrary spending caps would impede the delivery of resources needed 
to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks and violent crime. Such 
subjective across-the-board restrictions would hinder our ability to 
protect our homeland and secure our borders. As more and more of our 
service men and women are returning from the battlefield, this measure 
would restrict our ability to provide our military personnel and 
veterans with the medical care and support they need.
  These are only a few examples of the damage that would be done to 
vital programs, all for a projected savings of 2 percent.
  Even more troubling, this amendment would impose a roughly $10 
billion annual cap on emergency spending. Emergency spending is, by its 
very nature and definition, impossible to predict. To deliberately 
impede the government's ability to respond to natural disaster or major 
terrorist attack I say is deeply irresponsible.
  Recent history clearly demonstrates the folly of attempting to affix 
a set price to future emergencies. More than 4 years later, the gulf 
coast is still recovering from destruction wrought by Hurricane 
Katrina. Over $100 billion in Federal resources has been needed to 
respond to this one disaster alone.
  We have all seen the horrible suffering that has resulted from the 
devastating earthquake in Haiti. What if a city in California were to 
experience a similar disaster? This reckless amendment could delay or 
block the timely delivery of resources needed for an appropriate 
Federal response.
  The recent Christmas Eve airline bombing attempt serves as a stark 
reminder of the grave threats that continue to face our Nation. In the 
event of a major terrorist attack on our soil, the Federal Government 
must not be constrained by an emergency spending cap.
  Remarkably, this amendment would also restrict funding needed to 
support our men and women in uniform fighting overseas. Based on 
earlier budget projections that no longer reflect fiscal reality, this 
amendment provides $130 billion for the current fiscal year and $50 
billion per year thereafter for ``overseas deployments and other 
contingencies.'' The President's recent decision to increase troop 
levels in Afghanistan will almost certainly require additional 
resources from Congress.
  I find it very difficult to imagine that the Senator from Alabama 
genuinely believes that $50 billion would suffice to cover the cost of 
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  If this amendment were adopted, with defense and overseas caps, in 
statute, are we expecting Congress to cut defense to pay for these 
operations? That is what this amendment authorizes.
  Spending restraints that would deny funding needed to support our 
troops are not fiscally prudent; they are deeply irresponsible.
  Finally, I remind my colleagues that we already have a 60-vote 
threshold to overcome budget points of order to appropriations bills. 
As we all know, 60 votes is not a minor hurdle to overcome. By 
increasing that threshold to 67 votes, we turn over decisionmaking to a 
small portion of the Senate. We should not let those who represent only 
one third of this body exercise control over bona fide emergency 
spending.
  This country must face the challenge of reducing our deficit. We all 
agree to that. But we must do so in a meaningful and effective way. I 
do not believe this amendment does either.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the Sessions 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Uganda

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, a lot of times attention is drawn to 
terrible things going on around the world. We hear a lot about Sudan, 
and we hear about Zimbabwe, with a president who has taken that country 
from the breadbasket of the world to one of the most impoverished 
nations around.
  But there is one area nobody talks about. I have been trying for 
quite some time to get attention drawn to this area. We have a bill 
that is introduced by Senator Feingold, myself, and others, which is 
called the LRA Disarmament in Northern Uganda Recovery Act. This 
essentially does one thing. It directs the administration to develop a 
research strategy to apprehend a guy named Joseph Kony and the top LRA 
commanders throughout the country and protect the civilians.
  The reason this is important--and I have been dealing with this issue 
for 10 years, or perhaps more. I have had occasion to spend time with 
President Museveni of Uganda, President Kagame of Rwanda, and President 
Kabila of Congo, and others in that area. Twenty-five years ago, Joseph 
Kony--he is kind of a spiritual leader in that eastern African area. He 
is a deranged person. He decided to start a thing that some people have 
heard of, called the ``child's military'' or the ``children's army,'' 
where he goes out and abducts little kids. For more than 20 years, he 
has led this Lord's Resistance Army. He has done it primarily in the 
area of northern Uganda.
  I have been there several times to Gulu, which is the headquarters 
area. Many of the kids who have survived him are up there now in 
hospitals. His way of doing things is to go into villages and abduct 
children, young children--I am talking about 11, 12, 13-year-old 
children--and teach them to be soldiers, with AK-47s, the whole 
thing. Then they have to go back to their villages and murder their 
parents and all their siblings. If they do not do that, they cut their 
ears off and cut their noses off and cut their lips off, as we can see 
in this picture. Here are these young, little guys. That little boy is 
about 10 years old with an AK-47.

[[Page S234]]

  The tribes in that part of Africa, Hutus and Tutsis, have been 
fighting forever. We are all familiar with the genocide that took place 
in Rwanda and the millions of people who lost their lives and the 
torturing that went on. The things that have happened are just mind-
boggling. Yet all the time that was happening, nobody realized what was 
going on in that area.
  Millions of people have fled their homes over time and have been in 
displacement camps in the areas I just described. A vast nation in the 
heart of Africa, the DRC--the Democratic Republic of Congo--has strived 
to recover from lengthy civil wars. It goes back to many years ago, 
back when Congo got its independence from King Leopold II. Anyone with 
an interest in Africa at all should read a book. It is called ``King 
Leopold's Ghost.'' When you read this book, you will find out what 
really happened, what the true story is not just of the Congo but all 
of Africa.
  This area was in the Congo. The wars started back in 1960 and then 
the most recent started in 1990. Joseph Kony would go into these areas 
of displaced people and capture the young people. We made an effort, as 
we tracked him from one area to another just about 6 months ago, to 
Goma--that is a fairly large city in Eastern Congo. That is where he 
was last seen. He left before we got there. As he went north up toward 
the Sudan, he mutilated 900 people, most of them young people, on that 
route.
  One might ask the question, Why is it these countries are not able to 
eradicate this person, to do something about him? The problem is that 
we have a very fine President in Uganda, President Museveni. Museveni 
used to be a warrior. I think there is a reluctance of the warriors who 
become Presidents of African nations to want to say: We cannot handle 
the security ourselves; we are going to have to depend on other 
countries, the United States or other countries, to do it for us. He 
has been somewhat resistant.
  President Kagame from Rwanda is--I think everyone agrees--one of the 
greatest leaders in Africa. He is the one, in the genocide of 1994 that 
wiped out most of his population, who was able to go back. As you go 
down from the airport to the capital area of Rwanda, you would think 
you are in an American city. In fact, it is much cleaner than many 
American cities. He has been able to bring it back up. He also came 
from the bush as a warrior. Again, he is a great person. As I said the 
same thing about President Museveni, there is a reluctance to admit 
they cannot handle these problems themselves.
  President Kabila is President of Congo. Congo used to be called 
Zaire. It is a gigantic area. We remember the stories of explorers who 
went over there and were able to get all the way across the Congo, 
taking months and months to do so, many of them losing their lives. 
Back when the Congo was having serious problems, President Kabila, Sr., 
was there. He was actually killed, and his son Joe Kabila took the 
reins of the country. Joe Kabila also has a military background.
  So we have three Presidents. They respect each other. They are not at 
war with each other. They all have one thing in common; that is, they 
want to eradicate this monster called Joseph Kony. They have not been 
able to successfully get that done.
  What we are doing with this legislation is recognizing, because we 
never hear anyone talking about it, that there is this serious problem 
that is taking place. We all want to do things to help people who are 
downtrodden, but this is one that has been overlooked.
  Finally, this bill would give everybody throughout the world an 
understanding that this is now a U.S. priority and that we are going to 
finally do something to get rid of this Joseph Kony.
  It is easy to say that is another part of the world until you get 
over there and see. These are kids from 10 to 12 years old being forced 
to murder people in their own village. They brutally torture these 
children and maim them for life. That is what this guy has been doing 
for 25 years.
  We have an opportunity to do something. We never had an opportunity 
before. We tried to introduce it. This bill is one that is out of the 
Foreign Relations Committee now. It is sponsored primarily by Senator 
Feingold. I did not support it at first because it does require about 
$30 million to $35 million. He had it offset by taking money out of the 
Air Force. I did not like that. I think this President is going to go 
down as the most anti-defense, anti-military President in history. We 
punished the military enough, and I am not going to take any more money 
out of that budget. They agreed to pull that out in committee. The 
money should come from USAID, from existing State Department funds. We 
do not know that yet, but we do know this is going to come to the 
floor. We want it to come to the floor. There is a hold on it now. In 
fact, the hold is by my junior Senator. I hope we are able to get this 
bill.
  When we look at how many years something like this has been going on, 
this unspeakable type of behavior--we don't know of anyplace else in 
the world. It is a very small price to pay, a small effort to let us 
take the lead with other nations. I can assure my colleagues that other 
nations will follow. I have given talks in Canada and some of the other 
places about the problems we have with Joseph Kony.
  People say we just need to have somebody come in and say: If you can 
get together the Presidents of these countries of Rwanda, Uganda, 
Congo, Sudan, and the Central African Republic, these five countries, 
then we will come in if you lead the way. That is what we want to do.
  There are so many things going on right now. We have people who, when 
we had the PEPFAR bill--that was a bill to send money to countries, 
primarily African countries. That bill was on the floor of the Senate. 
It had been funded previously at $15 billion. Just 6 months ago, that 
bill was down here. They raised it from $15 billion to $50 billion. 
They raised it $35 billion. That is going to go to Africa with very few 
controls on it. We do not know where the money is going to go. This is 
less than one-thousandth of that amount to defend these kids.
  There is a group I ran into up in Gulu in northern Uganda. It was 
about 3 years ago. I wish I could remember their names. Young college 
kids recognized this was going on. They went up there with camera crews 
and took pictures. They have been here and rallied the support of 
literally thousands of college kids who have become familiar with these 
atrocities that are taking place. I applaud them for doing it. They 
wonder why we cannot do something.
  If you can increase your PEPFAR funding for Africa by $35 billion and 
you don't want to spend one-thousandth of that amount, $35 million, to 
save those kids--30,000 kids over the years have been mutilated like 
this--then there is something wrong with this country.
  We are going to make every effort--Senator Feingold is one of the 
more liberal Democrats, and I am one of the most conservative 
Republicans. This crosses all these concepts.
  I know my time has expired, but I only want to say I want to do 
everything I can to get this legislation through. I am going to ask our 
conservative friends to listen and do something that is right on this 
legislation. I believe, with the 51 cosponsors we have right now, we 
ought to be able to get the bill passed if we can get it to the floor.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Economy

  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, a little over a year ago this country 
stood on the brink of economic disaster. Banks and financial 
institutions wavered on the verge of collapse. The foundation of our 
economy was shaken to its core. But that is when this Congress took 
bold action. In the face of public discontent, many of my colleagues 
summoned the courage to cast a difficult

[[Page S235]]

vote--a vote that set aside hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up 
our failing financial institutions, a vote that was not popular with 
the American people but that I feel history will judge as the right 
thing to have done.
  These are the moments that define us--as individuals, as public 
servants, and as a nation. The American people called upon their 
representatives to make tough choices, to exercise their best judgment, 
and rise to every occasion that may impact the quality of life of the 
people of this country.
  I applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who lived up to 
these expectations and made the decision to do what was right, not what 
was popular. As a result of their courage and their ability to reach 
for something larger than the small politics of the moment, our 
economic foundation has been stabilized. That vote brought us back from 
the brink of disaster and restored confidence in the financial 
institutions that threatened to undermine our entire system. It did 
what was necessary to prevent a complete economic meltdown.
  But make no mistake, this emergency legislation did not solve every 
problem. It was not a cure-all. And as many hard-working Americans will 
tell you, we are not out of the woods yet. There are still miles to go. 
Our country remains on the road to recovery. If we want to continue 
down this road, this Congress needs to take the next step. So at this 
point, we must turn our attention to the ordinary Americans who are 
still suffering. It is time to help Main Street. It is time to take 
bold action to create jobs, help small businesses, and stabilize 
community banks. It is time to shift our focus to the innovators, 
entrepreneurs, and local institutions that drive our economy on a daily 
basis. In some places, things have already started to turn around and 
we need to continue that progress, but especially among poor and 
minority communities, these groups are falling further and further 
behind. As a former banker, I understand the vital roles these 
institutions play in local communities and our economy as a whole, and 
I understand the challenges they face in tough times such as these.

  That is why we need to embrace a new economic program which will 
encourage banks to start lending, make capital available for small 
businesses, and mitigate the foreclosures. Let's stop shutting down 
people's homes and putting them out in the streets. If we work together 
to tackle these priorities, we can have regular Americans get back on 
their feet without spending another dime on Wall Street.
  Let us come together right now to send a strong message to Main 
Street: Help is on the way. The cavalry is coming to help them. We can 
do this right now. We can do it without passing a new round of 
emergency appropriations. We can do it without increasing the deficit 
or the national debt and without writing another 100-page bill.
  When the original economic stimulus was passed more than a year ago, 
this Chamber set aside roughly $700 billion to aid in the recovery 
effort. These efforts have been effective and, as we speak, there is 
still $320 billion that has not been spent. So rather than begin the 
process again, as some have suggested, let us simply change the focus 
of the existing program. Let us draw from the money we have already set 
aside to help small businesses, local banks, and ordinary folks. At the 
moment, we don't have the resources or the time to start over with a 
new round of stimulus legislation, so let us seize this opportunity to 
direct funds we have already designated for this purpose.
  Every Member of this body has seen the devastating effects of the 
economic crisis in their home States. Everyone in this Chamber knows we 
need to act with urgency. We can't wait another moment. Thankfully, if 
we decide to embrace these priorities, there is no reason to wait. We 
can restore hope and optimism to Main Street, we can help the minority 
communities, small businesses, and local banks that are still in grave 
need of our assistance. We can do this, and I believe we must do it. 
The resources, the funds are there, and the commitment should be there. 
Let us use those resources now to put them into Main Street and help 
ordinary folks. Constituents come up to me all the time wondering: 
Where is my piece of the stimulus package? Well, it could be in Main 
Street. It could be in our local banks. So let's do it.
  I call upon my colleagues to use those dollars that are now in the 
stimulus package to put them into Main Street, into the local banks, 
and start helping the local communities.
  Thank you. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3308

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to share some thoughts on an 
amendment that Senator McCaskill and I offered earlier today. I note 
that a number of people are anxious to vote and finish up. If and when 
that time comes, I will be pleased to yield the floor. The amendment we 
offered, which would place statutory caps on spending--and that cap 
level that we picked was in our budget. It is what the Senate passed in 
the budget last year. It represents an increase each year, which is 1 
to 2 percent annually. This is a budget number basically passed by our 
Democratic colleagues.
  So what we are saying is, let's adhere to that. If we adhere to that 
level of spending, then we can begin to make progress.
  A similar type of statutory cap was placed in 1990, renewed in 1997, 
helped lead us to the only 4 years of budget surpluses in recent 
memory, from 1998 through 2001. After that, the statutory caps were 
allowed to expire. We find this was something that actually worked to 
help us contain excessive spending. This amendment would say that 
number that is in the budget for the next 5 years would be firm. We 
would put it in statutory language, but, of course, it can be exceeded 
by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and the statute itself can be 
reversed by 60 votes of the Senate. It is not something that 
constitutionally would be firm over managing our system. It is 
consistent with previous actions of the Congress. It worked, and I 
believe it will work again.
  It has been contended today, I understand, that these caps would 
impose limits on emergency spending that could potentially cripple our 
ability to respond to emergencies, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and 
terrorist attacks.
  Well, I just want to say that hurricanes and earthquakes and things 
of that nature have had huge bipartisan votes for emergency spending. 
For example, after Katrina, there were two supplemental emergency bills 
passed. The first was passed by unanimous consent. Nobody objected to 
it. It was unanimous. The second was passed on a rollcall vote, 97 to 
0. There is no doubt in my mind that if we have a serious emergency, we 
will have a lot of support for responding to that emergency.
  Also, one week after September 11, the Senate unanimously passed 
supplemental appropriations in response to that terrorist attack. So 
the allegation that somehow this would cripple the ability of Congress 
to respond to emergencies is inaccurate.
  Second, it was contended earlier today that the amendment contains 
unrealistic spending caps that would restrict funding needed to support 
our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  That is not accurate. The amendment includes specific provisions that 
prevent the caps from restricting funding for our troops in a time of 
war. It would not block us from doing that. We are in a time of war. It 
just would not apply in a time of war.
  We hear it said that everybody is concerned with the growth of the 
deficit and the need to control debt in the United States, but this 
amendment--the McCaskill-Sessions amendment--is not the appropriate way 
to attack this issue.
  Let me respond to that. For fiscal year 2010, the government spent 
$2.9 trillion, of which about $1.2 trillion was for discretionary 
spending. The remaining $1.7 trillion was mandatory spending. That is 
what we call entitlements. That is when you get 65 and you are entitled 
to Medicare, and the government has to pay it whether it has any money 
or not. You are entitled to Social Security payments, and the 
government has to come up with the

[[Page S236]]

money. We don't vote on it again. We already voted on Social Security 
to set up how much money you are entitled to get. We have to have that 
money. That is why it is called an entitlement.
  Now entitlements--Medicare and Social Security--exceed the 
discretionary account, which includes defense. So of the $1.2 trillion 
that is in the discretionary account that we actually vote on each 
year, approximately $526 billion, or a little less than half, is for 
nondefense purposes.
  This amendment attempts to reduce the deficit by constraining just 18 
percent of total government spending. It can make a much larger 
difference than many people realize. Five-year discretionary spending 
caps were passed--what we are proposing today--in 1990 and 1997 with 
strong bipartisan support. In 1997, 44 currently serving Senators 
supported the caps, and 26 of them were Democrats. It made a 
difference. We balanced the budget in 1998 through 2001--4 years. The 
current majority leader and chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
both voted, in 1990 and in 1997, for the 5-year caps, which restricted 
annual discretionary spending to approximately 1 to 2 percent 
increases. That is basically what our legislation would do. It would 
contain this discretionary spending to 1 to 2 percent.
  We know we are out of control. We know that last year discretionary 
spending increased by 10 percent, and this year it will increase by 12 
percent. That is unsustainable. At 7 percent growth, your money will 
double in 10 years. At 12 percent growth, the amount of money we would 
be spending in our discretionary account would double in 6 years--
double. We are on an unsustainable growth here. Some say: Where do you 
come up with this money, Sessions? This limit of 1 to 2 percent is too 
tough.
  It is not too tough. It is the budget we voted on. Actually, I didn't 
vote for it, our Democratic colleagues voted for it. It was their 
budget, and it passed with almost unanimous Democratic support. It 
calls for a 1- to 2-percent increase in spending over the next 5 years. 
That is all Senator McCaskill and I are suggesting we should do. We 
would make that harder to bust, harder to break it. We put in a firmer 
cap. If we stay on that level, and if we have an emergency, we will 
have to meet it. But if we stay at that level, we could end up 
surprising ourselves how much good we can do in the years to come.
  From fiscal year 2006 to 2009, the Federal debt was increased by 
approximately $4.4 trillion. That is a lot. That is almost the total 
debt of America. We had about $4 trillion in debt in 2006, and we 
added, in those 3 years, $4.4 trillion. During that time, the total 
increase in nondefense discretionary spending was approximately $93 
billion. This means the increase in nondefense discretionary spending 
has accounted for 2 percent of the increase in the national debt, our 
critics say. So it doesn't make much difference, they would say. They 
are correct about the surging debt, but not that this would make no 
difference. If it made little difference, then why are they worrying 
about passing it?
  Restraining discretionary spending, like we did in the nineties, is 
the bear minimum Congress can do to be fiscally responsible, in my 
view. For fiscal year 2010, nondefense, nonveteran discretionary 
spending increased by 12 percent and in 2009 by 10 percent. Those are 
huge increases, not including the stimulus package. If we included the 
stimulus package, nondefense discretionary spending has increased 57 
percent since 2008, in 2 years.
  That is a stunning number. We actually increased discretionary 
spending by 57 percent in 2 years. The Sessions-McCaskill amendment is 
similar to the proposal offered by President Obama or what we are 
hearing he is going to offer--to freeze nondefense discretionary 
spending for 3 years. This would place a cap on excess. If we break 
through the President's suggestion and don't freeze and go above that, 
we hit this cap, and it would take a two-thirds vote to go above that.
  Apparently, President Obama's suggestion is less spending than this 
bill would cap. But that is fine, we can always do less. The danger, 
from my experience, is that we get carried away and do more.
  Some have said the arbitrary spending caps would impede the delivery 
of resources needed to keep Americans safe from terrorist attacks and 
violent crime. Such subjective across-the-board restrictions would 
hinder our ability to protect our homeland and secure our borders.
  Well, it does allow for an increase, first and foremost. Second, our 
congressional process and appropriations process and authorization 
process should have helped us set priorities within that. It would be 
unthinkable if this Congress were to somehow take all that money that 
we need from areas to keep us safe from attack. Surely, we can make 
judgment decisions about that.
  Another allegation is that more and more of our service men and women 
are returning from the battlefield, and this would restrict our ability 
to provide them the medical care and support they need.
  This measure provides all the funding in the 2010 budget resolution. 
It would allow that. If additional resources are needed to care for our 
returning service men and women, and that has bipartisan support, and 
certainly if we need to be able to take care of injured and wounded, we 
could get 67 votes. We can do like most people do when they have a 
necessary expense. They trim spending somewhere else and fund the more 
necessary item.
  Some have said it would impose a roughly $10 billion annual cap on 
emergency spending. Emergency spending is, by its very nature, 
impossible to predict. The critics say, to deliberately impede the 
government's ability to respond to a natural disaster or major 
terrorist attack is deeply irresponsible. But that is not what we do. 
In the legislation we proposed as an amendment, Senator McCaskill and I 
set up a $10 billion a year emergency fund--every year. That would be 
incorporated in the budget resolution, it would be contained in our 
amendment, and it would be restricted only by the normal 60-vote 
requirement on a budget point of order for emergency spending. That 
money would not be subject to a higher point of order, and it would not 
change up to the first $10 billion--which is a lot of money.
  Alabama's budget, including education, is about $7 billion. So we are 
setting aside $10 billion for emergency funds every year, and if we 
went above that, we would have to have a supermajority for the kind of 
emergency that would justify that.
  I do not think that criticism is valid. Also, some have said that 
recent history clearly demonstrates the folly of attempting to fix a 
set price for future emergencies.
  More than 4 years later, the Gulf Coast is still recovering from 
Hurricane Katrina. Over $100 billion in Federal resources has been 
needed to respond to this disaster alone.
  Our amendment would have no effect on Hurricane Katrina. The fact is, 
as I have said before, we have had virtually unanimous votes supporting 
funding for Katrina. I do not think that is a valid criticism. If we 
have an emergency, I am confident this Congress will meet it.
  The recent Christmas Day airline bombing--I see my friend, Senator 
Leahy. Is he seeking the floor to speak? If so, I will try to wrap up.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am going to speak for just 3 or 4 
minutes, but I do not want to interrupt my friend from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will wrap up. I do not want to delay the vote. It 
will be perfectly appropriate for him to make his remarks at this time.
  But first, I will point out this chart. Why do we need to contain the 
reckless growth in spending? This chart shows how much interest we pay 
on the debt. When we passed a stimulus package of almost $800 billion, 
we did not have that money. Where did we get it? We borrowed it, and we 
have to pay interest on it.
  When we have an emergency, such as Hurricane Katrina--by definition, 
an emergency is an expenditure for which we do not have the money and 
it is above our budget. Our budget puts us in deficit. Emergency 
spending is always deficit funded, funded with borrowed money.
  In 2009, the interest we paid on our debt was $200 billion. That is 
the public debt. We have more debt than that. We have internal debt. 
Under the 10-year proposal President Obama gave us early last year, the 
Congressional

[[Page S237]]

Budget Office concludes that our deficits will surge and that in 10 
years, the interest for 1 year would be $799 billion. That is why 
everybody says we are on an unsustainable path. How do we get off it? 
Basically, we have to contain our spending. We cannot have $800 billion 
stimulus packages every year or two. We cannot have spending increases 
of 10 percent and 12 percent in basic discretionary accounts.
  If we start taking firm action now, this will not happen. The debt 
tends to compound. Our deficits tend to compound. They go into the 
baseline, and then we have an increase over that the next year and the 
next year, and it compounds a lot more than some of our Members 
realize. That is why we are getting into the area that threatens the 
very financial viability of this Nation, as Mr. Greenspan said in 
December with a statement so strong about the danger we face that it 
would curl your hair.
  That is why Senator McCaskill and I think we need to take some 
action. This is a proven way to do so with statutory caps. I encourage 
my colleagues to see it for what it is: a bipartisan attempt to be sure 
we do not rise above the budgetary caps that are in our budget. This 
amendment would make it hard to go above those levels in our spending.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, first, I thank my friend from Alabama for 
yielding time.


                           Amendment No. 3303

  Among the $120 billion in funding cuts that would be required by the 
Coburn amendment is a $1.3 billion rescission from the State 
Department. Section 13 of the amendment specifically directs the 
Secretary of State to eliminate two programs--the East-West Center and 
the Asia Foundation--saying this would produce savings.
  Even if it made sense to eliminate these programs which have a long 
history of achievement for our Nation and strong bipartisan, bicameral 
support, to do so would produce savings of only $42 million--a long way 
from the $120 billion about which he spoke. The Senator's amendment 
does not say where the balance of the $1.3 billion cut would come from.
  The Senator's Web site mentions two other small programs within the 
State and Foreign Operations budget that he believes should be cut 
which total $25 million, and $20 million of that, incidentally, is for 
the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, something that gets us praise 
around the world and actually protects the well-being of everybody in 
this country. It has long been supported by the senior Republican on 
the Foreign Relations Committee.
  The explanation of the Senator from Oklahoma for eliminating these 
funds is that other nations should be responsible for the conservation 
of their own tropical forests. Would that it were so. But when they get 
cut down, they affect those of us in Vermont, Colorado, Oklahoma, or 
anywhere else. In fact, it is like saying to other nations, no matter 
how impoverished--for example, Haiti--that they should take care of 
their own health needs. That ignores the fact that deadly viruses, such 
as HIV and TB, are as oblivious to national boundaries as are carbon 
emissions from the destruction of tropical forests. It is a 
shortsighted and unworkable approach to global problems that affect the 
American people directly.
  In defense of his proposal to rescind $1.3 billion from the State 
Department, Senator Coburn cites more than $13 billion in funding for 
Iraq reconstruction that has been wasted, stolen, or lost. I see my 
good friend from Oklahoma on the floor. I say in that regard, there is 
no doubt there was deplorable waste, fraud, and abuse of U.S. taxpayer 
funds by contractors, such as Halliburton, that received no-bid, 
sweetheart contracts under the last Republican administration. It was 
probably the most poorly implemented nation-building program in 
history. At that time, the Republican Congress rubber-stamped those 
funds that were wasted--probably not wasted if you were a shareholder 
of Halliburton; you thought it was a good idea because they walked off 
with so much of it. The White House even opposed efforts by some of us, 
including Republicans, to create the Office of the Special Inspector 
General for Iraq Reconstruction that discovered the misuse of funds.
  I also remind everybody that it was the Republican Congress, with a 
Republican President, that inherited the largest surplus in America's 
history, created by a Democratic administration, that of President 
Clinton's, that left a surplus that was paying down the national debt, 
left a huge surplus to the incoming Republican President. The 
Republican Congress not only voted to use that surplus to pay for an 
unnecessary war in Iraq but even cut taxes when we were fighting what 
ended up being two wars. It is the only time in our Nation's history we 
have done that--spend the surplus, cut taxes, and somehow these wars 
that have been going on now for 8 years would pay for themselves.
  I think to use the last Republican administration's waste of taxpayer 
dollars in Iraq as a rationale to rescind funds today that have 
bipartisan support for the security of our embassies and our diplomats 
overseas and for programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, the Middle 
East, Indonesia, Mexico, Central Asia, Israel, and Egypt, where the 
threats to U.S. national security interests are beyond dispute, would 
be foolhardy.
  Every one of us should agree that not every Federal program deserves 
to be funded and certainly not because it was funded in the past. I 
have voted to cut programs in the Appropriations Committee and on this 
floor because they have gone beyond their useful life span or were 
ineffective. Some programs are effective. Those that are not should be 
eliminated.

  But the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, 
with leadership between myself and the senior Senator from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Gregg--we spent the better part of last year making 
difficult choices of what to fund and what to cut. The Appropriations 
Committee approved those choices, Republicans and Democrats, all 29 
members, with one dissenting vote, and that was on another issue 
involving abortion. This amendment would cut funding to combat HIV, TB. 
Countries receive help from us, from Colombia, to Israel, to Egypt, to 
Mexico. The Senator from Oklahoma, with one strike of the pen, would 
arbitrarily slash 5 percent of that funding. Should we look for places 
where we can save money, where programs are not meeting their goals? Of 
course. But to do it this way, willy-nilly, picking a percentage out of 
the air with no concern for the consequences, does not protect the 
security of the American people.
  There is another section of the amendment about which I would like to 
speak. Section 5 of the amendment directs the Secretary of Education to 
work with the Secretaries of other relevant agencies to consolidate and 
reduce the cost of administering the student foreign exchange and 
international education programs. These exchanges are some of the most 
strongly supported programs by both Democrats and Republicans in the 
foreign aid budget.
  This amendment takes aim at the Benjamin Gilman International 
Scholarship Program, as well as several Department of Education 
international education and research programs, some of which are 
administered by the State Department, and a National Science Foundation 
program.
  The Benjamin Gilman Program, created by Congress, provides 
scholarships to American undergraduates to study abroad, including 
students in nontraditional destinations, or to study critical 
languages, such as Arabic, Persian, and Chinese. Our military, and our 
intelligence agencies, say there is an unmet need for Americans who can 
speak these languages. Senator Coburn would cut funding for it.
  The Department of Education's Foreign Language and Area Studies 
Fellowship Program provides funding for foreign language study at U.S. 
universities, and several of these programs focus on strengthening 
study in international business and education, at a time when we are 
becoming more and more aware we cannot compete just within our borders. 
Our businesses have to be able to compete with other countries around 
the world or we lose jobs in America. We should be strengthening our 
study of international business and education, not cutting these 
programs.

[[Page S238]]

  The amendment would cut other successful exchanges, such as the 
Fulbright-Hayes programs for teachers, high school students, graduate 
students, and business professionals. These exchanges bring foreigners 
with a range of economic, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to the 
United States and they send Americans overseas. At a time when America 
should be reaching out around the world for our security, for our 
businesses, we should not be cutting these programs which have been 
woefully underfunded as both Republicans and Democrats have pointed 
out.
  The Institute for International Education is one example of an 
organization that effectively administers these programs. It provides 
citizens of other countries with a chance to learn firsthand about 
American culture, our values, our government, and our way of life. 
These are among the most effective ways of countering the 
misrepresentation and false stereotypes about the United States that we 
see perpetrated by extremists. Some of these programs and their 
predecessors I saw during the Cold War period. I remember one of the 
early meetings I had, along with several others, with President Ronald 
Reagan. He had spoken about the evil empire, and he said: What would 
you suggest we do? Of the suggestions that several of us made, I said 
this: Why don't you visit the Soviet Union and invite their leader to 
come to the United States next year and visit here?

  He said: Why?
  I said: Because you really don't know much about them. I pressed him 
a little on that, but he heard me out, and I said: But they do not know 
much about you either, and it would force them to learn about you and 
your staff, and it would force us to learn about them and their staff.
  Later, in his second term, President Reagan told me that was some of 
the best advice he ever got. We know how triumphant his visit was to 
the Soviet Union and how triumphant it was when Mr. Gorbachev came 
here, and the two of them learned about each other and worked together 
to lower the threat of nuclear war.
  That is just one example.
  Mr. COBURN. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LEAHY. Without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. COBURN. No problem there.
  Is the Senator aware that the foreign ops appropriation increased by 
11 percent in 2009 and 33 percent last year? Yet the Senator is saying 
we can't trim 5 percent from that budget? Am I hearing the Senator 
correctly? We increased it 46 percent in 2 years, and we can't cut 5 
percent?
  Mr. LEAHY. I would tell the Senator from Oklahoma that if you look 
over the last 10 years, there have been significant shortfalls in many 
of these programs, and in personnel. The increases began first at the 
request of former President George W. Bush, and then followed by 
President Obama because they realized the need for us to have these 
programs for our own security.
  My response would be: Where do we make cuts? Your amendment does not 
say. Do we start with individual countries--Israel, Egypt, and so on? 
Do we start with programs to combat HIV, or malaria, or programs to 
eliminate childhood diseases in Africa? These exchanges enable 
Americans and foreigners to conduct scientific research to increase 
understanding and cooperation.
  Rather than cut funding, Senators on both sides of the aisle have 
consistently urged the Appropriations Committee to increase funding to 
expand our efforts to promote better understanding of the United 
States. If we had funded all the requests for increases, it would be 
considerably more than it was. Senator Gregg and I stayed within our 
allocation. Also, I think it was the only appropriations subcommittee 
that reported a bill with no earmarks.
  If there are ways of consolidating to reduce some administrative 
costs without harming the effectiveness or reducing opportunities to 
participate in these exchange programs, I am for it. But rather than by 
amendment to the debt ceiling bill, rather than giving carte blanche to 
the administration--or any administration--let's consider this in the 
normal appropriations process in a deliberative way.
  Mr. President, we actually work hard on these bills. We make 
difficult choices. Some things get funded, others do not. We vote up or 
down. We have to stay within our budget, and we did, and we did it 
without earmarks. So I believe the amendment should be rejected.
  It sounds nice we should just eliminate $2 billion in waste. Who 
would not want that? Let us be specific. Let us make the hard choices 
and say where the cuts are going to come from. The Senator's amendment 
does not do that. I recall a Republican President who gave great 
speeches about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and 
then during his administration tripled the national debt. I have heard 
great speeches by people who have voted to cut taxes during two wars, 
by people who instead of using the surplus left by the last Democratic 
President squandered it in a year's time.
  Mr. President, I see the distinguished majority leader on the Senate 
floor, so I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator from Vermont, the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the 
Coburn amendment, No. 3303, to be divided into four divisions, as 
follows, and modified to strike sections 17 and 18: section 1, division 
I; section 2, division II; sections 3 to 5, division III; and section 
16, division IV; further, that once the Republican leader or his 
designee has offered his amendment, a copy of which is at the desk, no 
further amendments or motions be in order; that Senator Coburn be 
recognized for up to 15 minutes; that upon the use or yielding back of 
that time, the Senate proceed to vote with respect to the following 
amendments in the following order; and that prior to each vote, there 
be 6 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual 
form--that is, there be 3 minutes on each side: Coburn division I, 
Coburn division II, Coburn division III, Coburn division IV; that on 
Thursday, January 28, after any leader time, the Senate then resume 
consideration of H.J. Res. 45; that no further debate be in order 
except as provided for in this agreement; that prior to each of the 
following votes with respect to H.J. Res. 45, there be 4 minutes of 
debate, equally divided and controlled in the usual form: Brownback 
amendment regarding commissions, which is at the desk; Sessions-
McCaskill amendment No. 3308; Reid amendment No. 3305; Baucus, for 
Reid, substitute amendment No. 3299; passage, H.J. Res. 45; further, 
that the cloture motions filed with respect to H.J. Res. 45 be 
withdrawn; with the vote threshold requirement still in effect as 
provided in the order of December 22, and that the Baucus amendment No. 
3306 be withdrawn; further, that upon disposition of H.J. Res. 45, the 
Senate then proceed to executive session, and there be 60 minutes of 
debate prior to the cloture vote on Executive Calendar No. 641, the 
nomination of Ben Bernanke to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of 
the Federal Reserve System, with the time equally divided and 
controlled between the leaders or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to modify my consent request. I said 
sections 3 to 5, but it is sections 3 to 15 be division III.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, but I want to convey my appreciation to the leader and his 
staff for allowing division in the four areas on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3303), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

       TITLE __--ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE AND WASTEFUL SPENDING

     SEC. 1. IDENTIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, AND ELIMINATION OF 
                   DUPLICATIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.

       The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability 
     Office shall conduct routine investigations to identify 
     programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative 
     goals and activities within Departments and governmentwide 
     and report annually to Congress on the findings, including

[[Page S239]]

     the cost of such duplication and with recommendations for 
     consolidation and elimination to reduce duplication 
     identifying specific rescissions.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCREASE OF THE OFFICE BUDGETS OF MEMBERS 
                   OF CONGRESS.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-68 for the 
     legislative branch, $245,000,000 in unobligated balances are 
     permanently rescinded: Provided, That none of the funding 
     available for the Legislative Branch be available for any 
     pilot program for mailings of postal patron postcards by 
     Senators for the purpose of providing notice of a town 
     meeting by a Senator in a county (or equivalent unit of local 
     government) at which the Senator will personally attend.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL 
                   SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE 
                   PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-80 for the 
     Department of Agriculture, $1,342,800,000 in unobligated 
     balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, That as 
     proposed by the President's FY 2010 budget, no funding may be 
     available for the Economic Action Program, which is 
     duplicative of USDA's Urban and Community Forestry program, 
     has been poorly managed, and has funded questionable 
     initiatives such as music festivals:  Provided further, That 
     no funding may be available for the High Energy Cost grant 
     program, which is duplicative of the $6,000,000,000 in low 
     interest loan programs offered by the UDSA's Rural Utilities 
     Service: Provided further, That as included in the 
     Congressional Budget Office's August 2009 Budget Options 
     document, which states that the program ``merely replaces 
     private spending with public spending'', no funding may be 
     available for the Foreign Market Development Program, which 
     also duplicates the Foreign Agricultures Service's Market 
     Access Program: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the numerous 
     programs administered by the Department relating to 
     encouraging conservation, including the Conservation 
     Stewardship Program, which the Government Accountability 
     Office revealed in 2006 is duplicative of other USDA 
     conservations efforts, including the Conservation Reserve 
     Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Farmland 
     Protection Program, the Wildlife Habitat Program, and the 
     Grassland Reserve Program: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall work with the Secretary of Energy to 
     consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the numerous 
     programs administered by both Departments relating to 
     bioenergy promotion, including the Department of Energy's 
     Biomass Program, the Department of Agriculture's Biomass Crop 
     Assistance Program, the Biorefinery Program for Advanced 
     Fuels Program, and the Biobased Products and Bioenergy 
     Program, the Biorefinery Repowering Assistance Program, the 
     New Era Rural Technology Competitive Grants Program, and the 
     Feedstock Flexibility Program: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall work with the Secretary of Energy to 
     consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the numerous 
     programs administered by both Departments relating to 
     alternative energy, including the Department of Energy's 
     Geothermal Technology Program, Wind Energy Program, and the 
     Solar Energy Technologies Program, and the Department of 
     Agriculture's Rural Energy for America Program: the Secretary 
     shall consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the 
     numerous programs administered by the Department that provide 
     food assistance to foreign countries, including the USAD 
     Foreign Agricultural Service, the food for Progress Program, 
     the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
     Nutrition Program, the food for Peace programs, the Bill 
     Emerson Humanitarian Trust, and the Local and Regional 
     Procurement Projects ; Provided further, That for any program 
     for which funding is prohibited in this section, any 
     activities under that program that are deemed by the 
     Secretary to be necessary or essential, the Secretary shall 
     assign to an existing program for which funding is not 
     prohibited in this section.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL 
                   SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE 
                   PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for 
     the Department of Commerce, $697,850,000 in unobligated 
     balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the 
     Secretary shall work with the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the programs 
     administered by both Departments that provide rural public 
     telecom grants, including eliminating USDA's grants to rural 
     public broadcasting stations, as proposed by the President's 
     FY 2010 budget, which duplicates the Department of Commerce's 
     Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, and the 
     Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which also receives 
     Federal funding: Provided further, That no funding may be 
     made available for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership Program, which duplicates the Small Business 
     Administration's Small Business Development Centers and which 
     has been found by the Office of Management and Budget to 
     ``only serve a small percentage of small manufactures each 
     year'': Provided further, That the Secretary shall work with 
     the Secretaries of Housing and Rural Development and 
     Agriculture to consolidate and reduce the cost of 
     administering the programs administered by these Departments 
     relating to Economic Development, including the following 
     programs, the Economic Development Administration, the 
     Community Development Block Grants, Rural Development 
     Administration grants, the National Community Development 
     Initiative, the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, 
     the Rural Housing and Economic Development grants, the 
     Community Service Block Grants, the Delta Regional Authority, 
     the Community Economic Development grants, and the 
     Historically Underutilized Business Zone program: Provided 
     further, That for any program for which funding is prohibited 
     in this section, any activities under that program that are 
     deemed by the Secretary to be necessary or essential, the 
     Secretary shall assign to an existing program for which 
     funding is not prohibited in this section.

     SEC. 5. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL 
                   SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE 
                   PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for 
     the Department of Education, $3,213,800,000 in unobligated 
     balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the 
     Secretary shall work with Secretaries from other Federal 
     Departments to consolidate and reduce the cost of 
     administering the at least 30 Federal programs that provide 
     financial assistance to students to support postsecondary 
     education in the forms of grants, scholarships, fellowships, 
     and other types of stipends, including the 15 such programs 
     at the Department of Education, such as the Academic 
     Competitiveness Grants, the TEACH grants, the Federal 
     Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, the Leveraging 
     Educational Assistance Program, the Javits Fellowships 
     Program, Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need 
     program, as well as the three similar programs administered 
     by the National Science Foundation, such as the Robert Noyce 
     Teacher Scholarship program, as well as a program at the 
     Department of Justice and one at the Health Resources 
     Administration: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     work with Secretaries from other Federal Departments to 
     consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the at least 
     69 Federal programs dedicated in full or in part to 
     supporting early childhood education and child care, as 
     outlined by the Government Accountability Office, which found 
     that these 69 education programs are spread across 10 
     different agencies: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     shall work with Secretaries from other Federal Departments to 
     consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the at least 
     105 Federal science, technology, math, and engineering 
     education programs, as outlined by the Academic 
     Competitiveness Council, which found that these 105 education 
     programs are spread across numerous Federal agencies: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall work with 
     Secretaries from other Federal Departments to consolidate and 
     reduce the cost of administering the numerous student foreign 
     exchange and international education programs, including the 
     at least 14 programs at the Department, including the 
     American Overseas Research Centers, Business and 
     International Education, Centers for International Business 
     Education, the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships, 
     the Institute for International Public Policy, the 
     International Research and Studies, the Language Resource 
     Centers, the National Resource Centers, the Technological 
     Innovation and Cooperation for Foreign Information Access, 
     and the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign 
     Language Program, the State Department's Benjamin A. Gilman 
     International Scholarship Program, the Boren National 
     Security Education Trust Fund, and exchange programs 
     administered by the National Science Foundation's Office of 
     International Science and Engineering.

     SEC. 6. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL 
                   SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE 
                   PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-85 for the 
     Department of Energy, $1,321,800,000 in unobligated balances 
     are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the Secretary shall 
     work with Secretaries from other Federal Departments to 
     consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the various 
     Federal weatherization efforts, including Federal funding for 
     State-run weatherization projects, the Department of Energy's 
     Energy Conservation and Weatherization grants, as well as the 
     Department of Energy's building Technologies Program, the 
     LIHEAP weatherization efforts, the National Park Service's 
     Weatherization and Improving the Energy Efficiency of 
     Historic Buildings program, and the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development's Energy Innovation Fund: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary shall consolidate and reduce the cost of 
     administering the various energy grant programs, including 
     the Tribal Energy grant program, which overlaps with the 
     Department's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants, 
     and the Energy Start Energy Efficient appliance Rebate 
     Program: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the various 
     vehicle technology programs at the Department, including the 
     Vehicle Technologies program, the Advanced Battery

[[Page S240]]

     Manufacturing grants, the Advanced Technology Vehicles 
     Manufacturing Loans Program, and the Innovative Technology 
     Loan Guarantee Program.

     SEC. 7. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL 
                   SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE 
                   PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
                   SERVICES.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for 
     the Department of Health and Human Services, $4,116,950,000 
     in unobligated balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, 
     That the Secretary, in coordination with the heads of other 
     Departments and agencies, shall consolidate the programs that 
     support nonresidential buildings and facilities construction, 
     including the 29 programs across 8 Federal agencies 
     identified by the Government Accountability Office. The 
     Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of HUD and USDA 
     and other appropriate departments and agencies, shall 
     consolidate duplicative programs intended to reduce poverty 
     and revitalize low-income communities, including the HHS 
     Community Services Block Grant, the HUD Community Development 
     Block Grant, and USDA Rural Development program: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall work with Secretaries from 
     other Federal Departments to consolidate and reduce the cost 
     of administering the dozens of Federal programs, across 
     multiple agencies, that funded childhood obesity programs, 
     either as the main focus or as one component of the Federal 
     program.

     SEC. 8. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL 
                   SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE 
                   PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
                   SECURITY.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-83 for the 
     Department of Homeland Security, $2,205,000,000 in 
     unobligated balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, 
     That the Secretary shall work with Secretaries from other 
     Federal Departments to consolidate and reduce the cost of 
     administering the dozens of Federal homeland security 
     programs, as identified by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, which states that ``a total of 31 agency budgets 
     include Federal homeland security funding in 2010''.

     SEC. 9. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF WASTEFUL 
                   SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF DUPLICATIVE 
                   PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN 
                   DEVELOPMENT.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for 
     the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
     $2,302,450,000 in unobligated balances are permanently 
     rescinded: Provided, That the Secretary shall work with 
     Secretaries from other Federal Departments to consolidate and 
     reduce the cost of administering the various Federal programs 
     aimed at addressing homelessness, including the Supportive 
     Housing Program, the Shelter Plus Care Program, the Single 
     Room Occupancy Program, the Emergency Shelter Grant Program, 
     programs at Health and Human Services such as the Basic 
     Center Program, Projects for Assistance in Transition from 
     Homelessness, and the Street Outreach Program, and also 
     including the more than 23 housing programs identified by the 
     Government Accounting Office that target or have special 
     features for the elderly.

     SEC. 10. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF 
                   WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF 
                   DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   INTERIOR.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-88 for the 
     Department of Interior, $606,200,000 in unobligated balances 
     are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the Secretary shall 
     consolidate and reduce the cost of administering the at least 
     11 historic preservation programs at the Department, 
     including the 9 preservation programs at the Heritage 
     Preservation Services, such as the Federal Agency 
     Preservation Assistance Program, the Historic Preservation 
     Planning Program, the Technical Preservation Services for 
     Historic Buildings, as well as the Save America's Treasures 
     Grant Program, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 
     and the Preserve America program: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall consolidate and reduce the cost of 
     administering the various climate change impact programs at 
     the Department, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs office 
     Tackling Climate Impacts Initiative, the U.S. Geological 
     Survey's National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, 
     the US Fish and Wildlife Service climate change initiatives, 
     and the state and tribal wildlife conservation grants which 
     are being provided to entities to adapt and mitigate the 
     impacts of climate change on wildlife: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary shall consolidate and reduce the cost of 
     administering the dozens of invasive species research, 
     monitoring, and eradication programs at the Department, 
     including the eight programs administered by the US Fish and 
     Wildlife Services, the similar programs administered by the 
     Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the 
     4 Federal councils created to coordinate Federal invasive 
     species efforts, the National Invasive Species Council, the 
     National Invasive Species Information Center, the Federal 
     Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and 
     Exotic Weeds, and the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.

     SEC. 11. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF 
                   WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF 
                   DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   JUSTICE.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for 
     the Department of Justice, $1,385,100,000 in unobligated 
     balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the 
     Attorney General in coordination with the heads of other 
     Departments and agencies, shall consolidate Federal offender 
     reentry programs, including those authorized by the Second 
     Chance Act, the DOJ Office of Justice Programs Bureau of 
     Justice Assistance Prisoner Reentry Initiative, the 
     Department of Labor Reintegration of Ex-Offenders program, 
     the Department of Education Lifeskills for State and Local 
     Inmates Programs, and the HHS Young Offender Reentry Program: 
     Provided further, That the Attorney General shall consolidate 
     the four duplicative grant programs, including the State 
     Formula Grant program, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention 
     Block Grant program, the Challenge/Demonstration Grant 
     program, and the Title V grant program, administered under 
     the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and 
     reduce the cost of administering such programs: Provided 
     further, That the Attorney General, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office 
     of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), shall consolidate 
     Federal programs that assist state drug courts, including 
     substance abuse treatment services for offenders, such as the 
     HHS Adult, Juvenile, and Family Drug Court program, the 
     Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
     Drug Court Treatment Program, the DOJ Drug Court Program, the 
     ONDCP National Drug Court Institute: Provided further,That 
     the Attorney General shall eliminate the National Drug 
     Intelligence Center (NDIC) which duplicates the activities of 
     19 other drug intelligence centers and reassign any essential 
     duties performed by NDIC.

     SEC. 12. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF 
                   WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF 
                   DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   LABOR.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for 
     the Department of Labor, $679,100,000 in unobligated balances 
     are permanently rescinded: Provided, That the Secretary, in 
     coordination with the heads of other Departments and 
     agencies, shall consolidate the 18 programs administered by 
     the Department and ten programs administered by other 
     agencies that support job training and employment, such as 
     the Adult Employment and Training Activities program, 
     Dislocated Worked Employment and Training Activities, Youth 
     Activities, YouthBuild, and the Migrant and Seasonal Farmers 
     program and reduce the cost of administering such programs.

     SEC. 13. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF 
                   WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF 
                   DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   STATE.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for 
     the Department of State, $1,318,550,000 in unobligated 
     balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, That in 
     accordance with the President's FY 2010 budget, no funding 
     may be made available for the Center for Cultural and 
     Technical Interchange Between East and West, which duplicates 
     the State Departments cultural exchanges: Provided further, 
     That no funding may be made available for the Asia 
     Foundation, which duplicates efforts at USAID and the 
     National Endowment for Democracy: Provided further, That for 
     any program for which funding is prohibited in this section, 
     any activities under that program that are deemed by the 
     Secretary to be necessary or essential, the Secretary shall 
     assign to an existing program for which funding is not 
     prohibited in this section.

     SEC. 14. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF 
                   WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF 
                   DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   TRANSPORTATION.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for 
     the Department of Transportation, $1,090,500,000 in 
     unobligated balances are permanently rescinded: Provided, 
     That the Secretary shall consolidate and reduce the costs of 
     various duplicative highway programs, including the 
     regionally specific development programs, the Federal-Aid 
     Highway Programs under chapter I of title 23, United States 
     Code, the Research programs authorized under title V of 
     Public Law 109-59: Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     consolidate and reduce the costs of various rail-line 
     relocation grant programs, including the Rail-Line Relocation 
     and Improvement Capital Program, and the Highway-Rail 
     Crossings Program, the Railroad Rehabilitation and 
     Improvement Financing program.

     SEC. 15. REPEAL OF EXCESSIVE OVERHEAD, ELIMINATION OF 
                   WASTEFUL SPENDING, AND CONSOLIDATION OF 
                   DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF 
                   TREASURY.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-117 for 
     the Department of Treasury, $677,650,000 in unobligated 
     balances are permanently rescinded.

     SEC. 16. RESCISSION OF UNSPENT AND UNCOMMITTED FUNDS FEDERAL 
                   FUNDS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
     $657,000,000,000 in Federal funds unobligated at the end of 
     fiscal year 2009, the discretionary, unexpired funds 
     available for more than 2 consecutive fiscal years, as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act, are permanently rescinded.


[[Page S241]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we just heard the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, who is also chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittee, give the typical Washington talk on why we can't cut 
spending. In light of the fact there has been a 45-percent increase in 
his area of appropriations, we now can't come back and give 5 percent 
of that back to the American people.
  Forty-five percent growth in 2 years, and we are picking winners and 
losers? We are not picking winners. The only winners we are picking are 
the American people.
  The fact is, there hasn't been a major program eliminated by the 
appropriations subcommittee in 5 years. What they do is, once they are 
there, they are there forever, and nobody is willing to make the hard 
choices. That is typical of all the talk we will hear about why we 
can't cut $120 billion from the expenditures for this year--$120 
billion out of $3.4 trillion, and we can't come up with 5 percent. We 
can't find it.
  We are giving you a way to do that. Everybody is going to get to 
vote, and we are going to send a message to the American people. At the 
rate we are growing the government, it will double in the next 5 years, 
and we can't find 5 percent, when they are having to make 10, 15, 20, 
and 25 percent cuts in their own budgets.
  What we heard was the typical appropriations response: We work hard, 
let's save this for appropriations. The problem is it never happens 
because every bill, somewhere, has a small constituency--every program. 
We listed 640 programs that have duplication, redundancy, and 
inefficiency. Yet we hear an appropriations subcommittee chairman say: 
Oh, no, we can't.
  Well, the American people don't get that. We ought to be about 
trimming the waste out of this government, and at a conservative 
estimate there is at least $387 billion in waste, fraud, or duplication 
this year.
  So we have the tremendous opportunity to come down here and deny the 
truth the American people know: This government is wasteful, it is not 
efficient, and most of the time it is not effective. When we try to 
make a commonsense, small cut after a tremendous growth over the last 2 
years, we hear: No, we can't. No, we can't. We hear a sob story. We 
can't do it.
  The fact is, we don't have a future unless we start cutting spending. 
The President even asked his staff to give him an option on the budget 
of a 5-percent across-the-board cut. We will hear tomorrow night about 
freezing discretionary spending. It is easy to freeze discretionary 
spending. We have just jumped it 27 percent across the board. But the 
freezing doesn't start until 2011. We are not going to freeze it until 
2011. Our problem is today. The problem that our children are going to 
face is being manifested and made significantly harder because we are 
fearful to make commonsense cuts.
  Mr. President, $100 billion out of this $120 billion comes from $660 
billion that is sitting in agencies that haven't expended it over the 
last 2 years--the $660-some billion. We are saying, of those that 
haven't been spent, that hasn't been rolled out over the last 2 years, 
send $100 billion back. It is easy. We are spending money so fast that 
the agencies can't even get it out the door. When they do get it out 
the door, it is ineffective and highly inefficient and loaded with 
fraud.
  Why in the world would we reject making commonsense efforts just like 
everybody else in this country is having to make today? Why would we 
put in the perspective: Oh, we can't do these little things, from the 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee, when in fact our country is drowning 
in debt and the future for our children is in doubt? We cry crocodile 
tears over some little program somewhere that in the whole realm of 
things is either duplicated or highly ineffective. We want to keep 
every last one of them.
  We just heard the chairman of the foreign ops subcommittee say we 
can't do any of this. They are way too valuable; we can't do it.
  Well, what is more valuable, taking care of the next generation, 
embracing our heritage of sacrifice to create opportunity or satisfying 
a small interest group that is dependent on a government program that 
is both ineffective and inefficient and also has three or four other 
programs that do exactly the same thing?
  The first component that we are going to vote on is a mandatory 
request of the GAO to tell us the duplication; tell us across agency 
lines where we are failing. What do we need to know? Nobody can tell us 
that today. When we asked the GAO--personally asked the GAO--they said 
the task is too big. Well, that ought to be our first signal that 
something is really wrong, when the Government Accounting Agency says 
the government is so big and convoluted that they can't tell us where 
we have duplication. They cannot give us recommendations on what to 
eliminate.

  That ought to be our first signal to say time out, stop, cut some 
spending and let's see who squeals, and we will put back if we have 
made a mistake.
  The American people understand, more than we do, what is at risk in 
the future. They want a secure future. They want the ability to plan 
for their children and their grandchildren. They do not want a fiat 
currency, which is what is coming if we do not rein in spending.
  Most of my colleagues know that is the problem before us. The 
question is, will we have the courage to go after it. It would be 
different had we not had significant increases over the last 4 or 5 
years in this country, in terms of the budget of the Federal 
Government. But it has doubled. We are going to have an increase in the 
debt limit for 1 year that is $200 billion more than the entire 
government spent in 1999. In 10 years we are going to borrow $200 
billion more than we spent--just to operate 1 year--than we spent in 
the entire budget in fiscal year 1999. Of every penny we spend this 
next year, 44 cents of it is going to be borrowed--$4.4 billion a day.
  What this amendment says is let's not make that so. It does not have 
to be so. Let's cut it to $3 billion or $3.3 billion of that. Let's 
save the future for our children.
  I am reminded that hard things are hard. Habits are hard to break. 
The habit of Washington is to never have to make a hard choice. We 
heard a stellar representation by the Senator from Vermont about why 
things cannot change here--because everybody has a special little 
project, they want to protect. While they are protecting their special 
little project, they are forgetting about the country as a whole. That 
should not be the legacy we want to embrace. The legacy we ought to 
embrace is that we had the courage to make the hard, tough decisions at 
a time when it was called for. Now is that time. It is not 2011, it is 
not next month, it is not when the appropriations bills come, it is 
now.
  Just think what would happen to the dollar tomorrow if the Senate 
cuts $120 billion of discretionary spending that is wasteful and 
duplicated and is not going to make a difference in nary an American 
life. The signal it will send to the world is we are back on track. The 
value of the dollar will rise, the cost of oil will go down, the 
standard of living of consumers will go up, and every family this year 
will benefit to the tune of $794, if we agree to this amendment.
  I think the citizens of America are worth that. I know their children 
and grandchildren are worth it. The question is, will we curry up the 
courage? Will we meet the challenge that faces this country or will we 
continue the status quo because we have always done it this way? Doing 
it this way is exactly what put us $12.4 trillion in debt; by this time 
next year $14.2 trillion in debt. It is mortgaging and stealing the 
future of our children.
  I look forward to seeing the outcome of the votes, and I know the 
American people do. This is the first time in a long time we have had a 
true vote on the floor to make a difference in what is going to happen 
in the finances of this country. My hope is we will not disappoint, 
again, the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma 
that there is waste within government, that there is duplication or 
overlap of programs across some government agencies, and that the 
amount of spending approved for fiscal year 2010 was higher than it 
should have been given our Nation's fiscal situation. That is part of 
the reason why I opposed the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution.
  But, I am not enamored of the approach that Senator Coburn has taken

[[Page S242]]

in this amendment. It is an abdication of our constitutional duties as 
elected Members of Congress to cede such vast decisionmaking power to 
the executive branch. If there is $120 billion to be cut from the 
budget, we should identify those cuts and vote on them. We should not 
let the President, a commission, or some other entity make those 
decisions for us.
  Throughout the past year the Senator from Oklahoma and other Members 
offered amendments to cut spending from the budget resolution, 
appropriations bills, and other measures. Some of these amendments were 
adopted and some were not. I supported some of the amendments and 
opposed others. In each case, however, Senators knew what they were 
voting on and had some idea what the effect of the amendment would be. 
With this amendment we have no idea what its effect will be. The 
sponsor of the amendment says the impacts will be negligible but offers 
virtually no specifics. Perhaps he is correct. It is also possible that 
the President--whose priorities in many respects differ significantly 
from most Senators on my side of the aisle--will take the reductions 
mandated by this amendment from programs that my colleagues and I feel 
to be high priorities. It is possible that the President will fail to 
take the reductions from those programs we feel are most duplicative or 
wasteful.
  We will likely never know the answers to these questions. This 
amendment will not be enacted. I agree that Federal spending must be 
constrained. As we go forward, however, I hope the Senate will take a 
more transparent approach to deficit reduction so that Senators, 
consistent with their constitutional responsibilities, can make 
informed decisions about the operations of the Federal Government.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the Coburn amendment, Division I.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 6 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Byrd
     Mikulski
     Roberts
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 94, the nays are 0. 
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
division, the division is agreed to.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the next three votes be 10-
minute rollcalls.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3303, Division II

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 6 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, on Coburn division No. II. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this amendment rescinds our increase for 
our operations. We increased our budget 5.8 percent at a time when 
there was no inflation last year, zero. The year before that, we had 
increased our budget in excess of 10.9 percent, which means we 
effectively increased our own budgets to run our own operations 17 
percent in the last 2 years, with less than 1 percent inflation over 
that period. If, in fact, we can't lead by example to cut our own 
budgets to help the country move out of the problem it is having, it is 
probably because we are not very good managers of our own budgets, 
which belies the problem we now face. I appreciate support on this 
amendment. The American people would sincerely appreciate support on 
this amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the amendment being offered by the Senator 
from Oklahoma affects the legislative branch. It is true it affects 
Members of Congress in their offices, but it affects much more. We just 
had an overwhelming vote to give new responsibilities to the Government 
Accountability Office. The next amendment up calls for cutting their 
budget. I would say to the Senator from Oklahoma, you can't have it 
both ways. You give new responsibilities to these agencies and then 
say: We will give you less money to do it.
  Let me suggest something else. When you start to leave this evening 
to go home and you drive by the gate out here and you see, in the dark, 
men and women in uniform risking their lives for us and for the 
visitors to the Capitol, remember this vote. This vote cuts funds for 
the Capitol Police and security in the Capitol. When the Senator from 
Oklahoma was asked earlier, are you asking for too much in cuts, he 
said: I want to keep cutting until they squeal. What will be the squeal 
we hear when it comes to security from the Capitol? I am sorry to say 
it might be an incident that none of us wants to see.
  We want this to be a safe place. The Capitol Visitor Center has more 
and more people coming in. Cutting security for the Capitol at this 
point in time with the threats facing our Nation and the fact that we 
work in one of the biggest targets in America is very shortsighted. 
That is what happens when you cut across the board and you don't take a 
look at the individual agencies involved. Please, for the security of 
the Capitol and for the security of the people who visit it, vote no on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, it is remarkable what length we will go to 
defend our budgets. The fact is, the assumption Senator Durbin made is 
that we are efficient. The fact is, we are not. Everybody in here could 
turn back at least 10 percent of their budget if they ran their office 
efficiently. We know that. Nothing in Washington is run efficiently. So 
to say we can't do it without putting ourselves at risk is poppycock. 
It is time for us to lead. Now is the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. One thing I forgot to mention. Members of Congress 
voluntarily forgo every cost-of-living adjustment each year. We decided 
not to ask for a cost-of-living adjustment because we are in hard 
times. To suggest that sacrifices are not being made is not accurate. I 
urge my colleagues, vote against this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the Coburn Amendment, Division 
No. II.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page S243]]

  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 48, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Byrd
     Mikulski
     Roberts
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
48. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this division, the division is withdrawn.


                    Amendment No. 3303, Division III

  There will now be 6 minutes of debate equally divided on Coburn 
division III.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we are going to hear why we cannot do 
this, kind of along with the debate we just heard from the majority 
whip. But here are some examples for you. This is what the GAO found.
  In 2005, 13 different Federal agencies spent $3 billion to fund 207 
programs to encourage students to enter the field of math and science. 
Mr. President, 207 different programs, and we are going to vote against 
eliminating them here in just a minute.
  In 2003, $30 billion was spent on 44 job-training programs 
administered by 9 different Federal agencies. Fourteen departments 
within the Federal Government, 49 independent agencies operate exchange 
and study abroad programs. So 14 departments, 49 independent agencies 
operate exchange and study abroad programs; 69 early education programs 
administered by 9 different agencies; 23 Federal housing programs that 
target or have special features for the elderly operated by 6 different 
agencies.
  That is just a minimal number.
  We are going to hear why we cannot do this. The American people are 
wanting to know when we are going to do what is right, what is 
possible, and what is best for the long term, not the short term.
  With that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma proposes to cut 
$20 billion from programs which he describes as being redundant. Well, 
take, for example, nursing. There are three different programs. They 
are not redundant. One is for education; another is to train women and 
men to go to rural areas, rural America, to serve; and the third is for 
research. Yes, three different agencies handle that. It is for three 
different purposes.
  Then you have HUD. One of the sad facts of life is that tonight 
658,000 American men, women, and children are going to go to bed 
homeless, some of them with empty stomachs, some without blankets, and 
we are going to cut 5 percent from housing for the homeless? This 
amendment does that.
  Then you have cuts for foreign operations. Senator Leahy spent some 
time this afternoon explaining why this is foolish. We had an 
accounting change because now we cover State Department activities in 
Afghanistan and Iraq.
  I think it is ill-advised to do what the Senator proposes because 
these are not redundant. These are not wasteful. I think we could be 
spending more for the homeless, but yet we are cutting this by this 
amendment. I hope we reject this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what the American people are asking is, 
Why aren't the three nursing programs combined so you have one set of 
overhead to administer all three programs? That is what they are 
asking. This does not cut any money for the homeless. What it says is, 
put all the homeless programs under one set of administration where we 
save money and are much more effective at what we are doing because we 
are concentrating it within one area. We can have all sorts of reasons 
why we cannot do it. Let's find the courage to do it for the American 
people and the kids who follow.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the Coburn amendment, Division 
III.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 33, nays 61, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

                                YEAS--33

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Byrd
     Mikulski
     Roberts
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 33, the nays are 
61. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
this division, the division is withdrawn.


                    Amendment No. 3303, Division IV

  There will now be 6 minutes for debate equally divided on Coburn 
Division No. IV.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, last year Federal agencies ended the 
fiscal year with $657 billion in unobligated balances. There is no 
question a great deal of that is associated with the war efforts and 
other things, but according

[[Page S244]]

to OMB and CBO, approximately $100 billion of that has been sitting for 
2 years or longer, never having been obligated for what we have 
directed it to. So we have $100 billion sitting out there that the 
agencies have not been able to spend. Obviously, if they haven't been 
able to spend it in the last 2 years, it is not a priority. If, in 
fact, we rescind that money to the Treasury, we will cut our deficit 
$100 billion, and then we can reappropriate what is necessary for this 
year. The rule in the Federal Government is after 2 years it is 
supposed to go back to the Treasury anyway, which is not being enforced 
for everybody except the Treasury Department. They are under that 
obligation.
  So here is an opportunity--it doesn't affect anything because the 
money hasn't been obligated--to put it back in and start over and 
reprioritize. That is all it is about. It will actually move $100 
billion back and then our appropriators can decide whether they want to 
put that back this year.
  I appreciate your consideration on this amendment, and I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields?
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this is a very serious amendment. 
Potentially it could be damaging. It says, very simply, if the funds 
are not obligated for 2 years, then it is rescinded. It sounds 
reasonable, but I think it is no secret it takes longer than 2 years to 
build a battleship. It takes more than 2 years to build an aircraft 
carrier. It takes more than 2 years to build a hospital. Right now, 
there are 43 VA hospitals being built. Are we going to cut them out? 
What about the shipbuilding industry? Are we going to rescind that?
  This amendment has potentially very dangerous consequences. I hope my 
colleagues will vote against it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the dangerous consequences facing this 
Nation aren't as outlined by the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. The dangerous consequences facing this Nation are continued 
spending and borrowing from the next generation and a creditworthiness 
that is not going to even be BBB. There is no question there is danger 
before us. It is not this amendment. It is the continuing efforts on 
the part of those who are in Washington to not recognize the fact that 
we are wasting money hand over fist and, in fact, we appropriate yearly 
on many of these projects. So it will not eliminate any as outlined by 
the chairman. It will give us a chance to reprioritize, which every 
family in America is doing today.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is such a 
second.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the Coburn amendment, Division IV.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from 
Virginia (Mr. Warner), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 57, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 9 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Byrd
     Mikulski
     Roberts
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 37, the nays are 
57. Under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of 
the division, the division is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3309 to Amendment No. 3299

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I think under a previous agreement I was to call up an 
amendment. I ask that my amendment be callled up, No. 3309, which is at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendments are set aside and the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3309 to amendment No. 3299.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the 
following members as cosponsors to the amendment: Senators Chambliss, 
Ensign, and Vitter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, as I understand, there are no further 
votes this evening, and there will not be votes tomorrow. We will have 
this up Thursday, and we will debate it then and vote on it. I will put 
in somewhat of a statement tonight and then talk about it further on 
Thursday.
  This is a commission that has been in front of this body several 
times. We voted on it. It passed this body twice before in the budget 
debates. It is CARFA, the Commission on the Accountability and Review 
of Federal Agencies.
  It is modeled exactly after the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission, the BRAC, that has been so successful on closing military 
bases and consolidating assets and put the military in a better 
position. This is the same thing. It is to all of government. It has 
been voted on by this body twice before. It has passed this body. It is 
done in the budget agreement. It is time it became the law of the land.
  That is the process whereby we can actually cut government spending. 
It is a simple process--eight members on the Commission, four appointed 
by this body, four appointed by the House. For any recommendation to 
move forward, it has to pass by six of eight members, so either party 
cannot dominate or determine it. It has to be six of eight. It will 
take one-fourth of the government each year for 4 years and review that 
fourth of the Federal Government and make recommendations for closure 
during that year's period of time.
  The report for that year then is submitted to the appropriate 
committees of jurisdiction for a period of 30 days. They can review the 
report. They can hold hearings on the CARFA commission recommendations 
for a period of 30 days. They can look it over and see which ones they 
like, which ones they do not like, but they cannot amend it.
  At the end of that 30 days, it is then subject to a privileged motion 
to come in front of this body so it has to be voted on by this body 
with a limit of 10 hours of debate prior to going to the motion, 10 
hours of debate on the bill itself. It cannot be amended. Then it is an 
up-or-down vote, with a 50-vote threshold of passage. It is a 
privileged motion that comes in front of this body, with a majority 
vote for it to pass through this body.
  This is the way we will get spending under control and done. This is 
an agreeable way. It is a way that has proven itself in the past. Now 
is the time we have to do this.
  I wish to show one chart that is new out today. It is no new news, 
unfortunately. This one is new out today. This

[[Page S245]]

is the projection of our Federal debt as a percentage of GDP. That is 
the one to watch, the projection of the Federal debt as a percentage of 
GDP.
  We can see what the January 2008 estimate of the Federal debt as a 
percentage of our economy was supposed to be. Here is the percent of 
the economy. We are pushing up 38 percent or so at this point in time. 
In January 2008, this starts bending back down and moves to 20 percent 
by 2020. Then we had the January 2009 estimate come in. We see there we 
were getting up to mid-50 percent, and then it was going to bow back 
down to 41 percent. That was last year's 2009 estimate.
  This year, just out today--this is the estimate--2010 as a percent of 
the economy, we are looking at our Federal debt as being midsixties, 67 
percent, and staying at that level for the debt as a percentage of the 
economy. These are terrible numbers. They are way too high. They are 
stifling the economy. It is a nonsustainable position, and it is 
something we have to fix.
  Earlier today, we considered a commission that had both spending and 
taxes in it. The American public is not for more taxes. They think they 
are taxed out, and I believe they are too taxed. They should not be 
taxed more. They do want us to cut spending. There is no question about 
that. They want us to cut it prudently. They want us to cut in 
wasteful, duplicative areas. That is what they want to get at. They 
want core programs clearly taken care of. That is why we put it to a 
bipartisan commission of individuals to look at. The recommendation has 
to clear six of eight members so no party can control--four appointed 
by Republicans, four appointed by Democrats--examined by the committees 
and then put forward for a vote. This can work. This is what the public 
wants us to do. It is time to do it.
  We have to start bending this down, the debt to GDP. This is 
dangerously high. It has not been this high since World War II. We 
cannot sustain it. We have to pull it back down. I would love us to 
start to cut spending and go through the committees and say we are 
going to cut here, we are going to cut there. We have not been able to 
do that under Republican or Democratic control of either branch of 
government. We have not been able to go at that on an individual basis.
  This is a system that has worked in the past. This is a system that 
this body has approved in the past. It has been in budget agreements. 
We have not made it all the way through in the budget agreement, but 
Members in this body have voted on this system for controlling 
spending.
  If people want to come back later and say: We want to look at other 
provisions or we want to add something back, they can do that in future 
conferences. But this gets that culling process going.
  I wish to point out one issue to my colleagues about the problem of 
running high debt and its impact on the economy. If the Federal 
Government runs a high debt level, it has a drag on the economy. There 
is a recent study just released at an American Economics Association 
meeting. The title of the study is ``Growth in a Time of Debt.'' It 
said, according to the study, that the sharp runup in public sector 
debt will likely prove one of the endearing legacies of the 2009 
financial crisis in the United States and elsewhere. The study looked 
at debt levels of 44 countries and included data over the last 200 
years in order to get the most comprehensive picture possible, the 
picture of debt on economic growth.
  What does this big lug do to the overall economy? Does it have an 
impact? They said, clearly, yes.
  The conclusion is clear: Very high government debt, classified as 90 
percent or more of gross domestic product, results in average growth 
rates a full 4 percent below countries with lower debt levels. Since 
annual growth rate and GDP is averaged considerably less than 4 percent 
over the last 10 years in the United States, carrying high national 
debt can mean the difference between a growing economy and a 
contracting economy.
  After the recent binge of Federal spending, our Nation's gross debt 
could well surpass the 90 percent of GDP mark and go even above that, 
to the point that could be the lug on the economy that keeps us from 
growing and actually puts us in a contracting economy.
  I urge my colleagues or members of the Senate staff to look at these 
studies and look at the impact of debt on economic growth. This could 
end up being the real lug of what happens during this period of time.
  CARFA is a bipartisan mechanism that can work us out of this 
situation. It pushes at the places we actually can cut and need to cut. 
Everybody in this body believes, and I believe, there are clear places 
in the Federal Government we can cut. For one reason or another, they 
have become sacred cows and we have not been able to cut them. This is 
a process that has worked on military bases before.
  I will talk more about this amendment when we vote on it on Thursday. 
I ask my colleagues, in the interim day, when we have a chance to look 
at some of these things, to examine this process. It is one they have 
seen before. I have proposed this bill for 10 years. They voted on it 
before, as I stated earlier. I urge them to look at this and think: Now 
is the time to do this. Maybe they had reservations about it in the 
past or thought: I don't think we want to go into that sort of 
mechanism now. But there is not another mechanism that works. This 
changes the mechanism for spending in a way that has worked in the past 
and, clearly, with these sort of debt numbers, the time has come to do 
it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are now debating a resolution that would 
raise the Federal debt ceiling, allowing the Federal Government to 
borrow enough money to meet its obligations. I doubt anyone in this 
Chamber is happy at the prospect of approving another such increase. I 
know I am not. Yet we must approve it. Failure to pass this resolution 
would do incalculable harm to our government's standing with financial 
markets and endanger nearly every activity the government undertakes. 
It would throttle the faint, fragile signs of recovery from the deepest 
financial crisis in 75 years. Refusal to pass this resolution is not an 
option. It would be irresponsible and dangerous to the jobs and income 
of every American.
  Yet the magnitude of this action is staggering. If successful in this 
necessary endeavor, we will authorize the Treasury to carry more than 
$13 trillion dollars in debt. That is more than $42,000 for every man, 
woman, and child in the United States.
  While the debt itself is enormous, the rate to which we have been 
adding to it in recent years is equally staggering. The year President 
Clinton left office, the government ran a $236 billion surplus. Yet, 
after 8 years of Republican leadership, that surplus evaporated into a 
mind-boggling $1.3 trillion deficit the day President Obama took 
office.
  The message of these numbers is simple: We cannot go on as we are. If 
we do not change our budget policies, and change them a great deal, we 
will plunge our economy into deep depression.
  Discretionary spending and nondiscretionary spending alike must be 
addressed. While some have successfully politicized earmark spending 
and discretionary spending programs, good and bad alike, the simple 
fact is that merely addressing these issues will not balance our 
budgets.
  In addition to meaningful spending reforms, we must also engage in 
meaningful revenue reforms. The Bush-era tax cuts have already added 
trillions to our debt. Most should not be renewed. We also should end 
loopholes that allow corporations to hide income in offshore entities 
and people to hide their assets and income overseas.
  But the fact is that most of our budget choices are not easy. And it 
is precisely because these choices are so difficult that we find 
ourselves where we are now. So it is worth considering how we got into 
this situation and how we might get out of it and whether the amendment 
to this resolution to be offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg presents 
a possible solution.
  First, let me respond to those who seem to have just recently 
discovered the importance of the Federal debt. Many of the people 
bemoaning budget deficits today are the same people who advocated a 
series of policies under the previous administration that added

[[Page S246]]

greatly to our deficits, including enormous tax cuts mainly for the 
wealthiest. No effort was made to pay for that policy or the two wars. 
They were financed by debt.
  In fact, to the extent that our budget outlook is significantly worse 
at the end of this decade than it was in the beginning, decisions by 
the previous administration are by far the biggest contributor to the 
problem. In parceling out the blame for our massive deficit, one expert 
said, the Obama administration ``is like a relief pitcher who enters a 
game in the fourth inning trailing 19-0 and allows another run to 
score. The extra run is nothing to cheer about, of course, but fans 
should be far angrier with the starting pitcher.''
  However we reached this point, it is our responsibility now to 
address the consequences of failing to act. That is why I believe the 
amendment offered by Senators Conrad and Gregg is worthy of 
consideration.
  Briefly, they propose to establish a task force to recommend changes 
to our budget policies to address our long-term fiscal crisis. The task 
force would consist of 18 members: 16 Members of Congress, equally 
divided between House and Senate and majority and minority, and 2 
administration officials, the Treasury Secretary and another 
Presidential appointee. Recommendations would require approval of 14 of 
the commission's 18 members. Those recommendations would be referred to 
the Budget Committee and other committees of jurisdiction in each 
Chamber and then move automatically to floor votes in each Chamber, 
where passage would require a three-fifths vote.
  There is much to recommend this approach. Our fiscal problem is so 
large partly because it is so politically difficult to address. 
Repairing our finances will require some combination of spending cuts 
and tax increases, and spending cuts and tax increases are rarely 
politically popular. The use of a task force to recommend difficult but 
necessary choices for the common good has been successful in the past, 
in several rounds of military base closings and with the Greenspan 
Commission on Social Security reform in 1983.
  But this approach is not without flaw. One is the structure of the 
task force, which would include two executive branch appointees.
  Some have argued that the legislative commission must include members 
from the executive branch to achieve Presidential buy-in on the 
commission's proposal. And I agree that gaining the support of the 
administration is vital in this effort. But in seeking that buy-in, I 
do not believe it is either necessary or proper to give executive 
branch officials votes, which are potentially decisive votes, on 
recommendations that would bypass the Senate's rules and procedures. 
The proper way to achieve Presidential buy-in is through Presidential 
communication and consultation and the threat of an actual Presidential 
veto of a task force proposal, if passed by the Congress, if it is 
objectionable to the President. The appropriate buy-in before Congress 
acts could also be advanced with ex officio membership for the two 
executive appointees.
  I was pleased that the task force proposal we are voting on today no 
longer gives the task force power to recommend changes to the Standing 
Rules of the Senate. That is a welcome change from its prior 
iterations. Successfully tackling our fiscal crisis will require far-
reaching legislation, and procedural hurdles in both chambers make 
passing any far-reaching legislation extraordinarily difficult. But any 
permanent procedural changes in our rules should be made by the Members 
themselves in each Chamber and not through this process.
  Despite my reservations, particularly about voting membership for 
executive branch officials on a congressional commission that has the 
power to bypass the normal rules of our body for consideration of its 
recommendations, I believe Senators Conrad and Gregg have offered a way 
forward. Their 60-vote requirement for positive congressional approval 
of the task force's recommendations does significantly protect 
congressional prerogatives. It also is clear that our current political 
climate and ways of doing business have been unequal to the task. 
Addressing our deficit requires bold action. The consequences of 
failure to act are too severe for us to miss this chance to act. I will 
vote for the Conrad-Gregg proposal.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________