[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 52 (Wednesday, April 14, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2275-S2289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTINUING EXTENSION ACT OF 2010--Continued
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will resume
consideration of H.R. 4851.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Amendment No. 3723
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, if anybody has been watching the Senate
today, there was a point of order made that the spending we are going
to pass to pay for unemployment insurance extension benefits and
benefits for health insurance for those people, in terms of buying
through their former employers, as well as the sustainable growth rate
formula, failed to be overriden.
We will have another vote on that because the majority side was
missing one Member, and they will eventually win on that. What that
says is, we are once again back to the point where we refuse to make
the hard choices to pay for things we need to do today by eliminating
things that are not as important.
The point of order was on the fact that it is an emergency so,
therefore, we can say: Time out. But those who voted to override it
fail to recognize the other major emergency that is happening in our
country. We have $12.8 trillion worth of debt as of today. We are going
to add another $1.4 to $1.5 trillion this year, this calendar year;
that the increase in the cost of that debt over the last 12 months will
require an additional, next year, $125 billion worth of expenditures.
There has to come a point in time when we grow to the responsibility
that has been given to us; that is, make hard choices. It is very easy
to pass an unemployment insurance bill by charging it to our children.
The majority leader has graciously agreed to give me an opportunity to
offer three different ways to pay for that. I am going to put those out
today. One amendment now, which we will vote on, another amendment
later, and then a third amendment later.
Most of the ideas for cutting spending, quite frankly, have come from
my colleagues on the other side, and many of them you have already
voted for. So it is going to be an interesting exercise today. The
majority leader also spoke to me before lunch saying it did not matter
because I was going to lose anyway.
That sends a signal. The leadership of our Senate today says: We do
not have to pay for things.
Prior to leaving here, we agreed on a compromise of tax loophole
closures that would have paid for this for a period of 30 days. The
bill we voted on back then was for 30 days. We have now before us an
identical bill before us for 60 days. It is going to cost $18.2
billion. That is what CBO says. The question I have to ask is, is it
morally right for us to steal that money from our children's future or
make hard choices about wasteful spending today? The choices are not
hard other than in our stubbornness that we don't want to agree.
When businesses are taken over, when a larger business buys a smaller
business, the first thing they do is become great cash managers of the
business. In other words, they make sure the money in the business is
always working for the business. So if there is excess cash lying
around in accounts, they take that money and reduce whatever
outstanding debts they have or forgo borrowing money and use that cash
in a more efficacious and serious manner. The first amendment I will
offer is asking us to do nothing but the same.
At the end of last year, the Federal Government had on its books
money it borrowed but had not spent of $676 billion. That is what is
sitting in accounts, money we have borrowed that is not being utilized
efficiently. At the end of next year, at the end of fiscal 2011,
according to the OMB, it will be $614 billion. That is almost half of
the debt we will borrow this year. This first amendment simply says:
Let the administration utilize its executive prerogatives and instead
of us borrowing $18.2 billion from our children and then paying
interest on that--and, by the way, the interest on that $18.2 billion
that will go on in perpetuity, because we are not retiring any debt, is
about $900 million, almost $1 billion a year. Why would we borrow money
when we have money sitting there that is not being utilized effectively
and pay almost $900 million every year? Why would we borrow again next
year an extra billion to pay for the money we are going to borrow to
fund this program?
Let me give an example of where this money lies. In our own accounts
to run the legislature, we have $1.450 billion sitting there. In other
words, it has not been promised to do anything. It is sitting there. It
was sitting at $1.876 billion at the end of last fiscal year. It is
projected to be $1.481 billion next year. We are keeping that money in
the bank and not using it.
The Department of Agriculture has $20 billion and is estimated in
2011 to have still $12 billion sitting in an account that we are paying
interest on that is not being utilized, not obligated for anything at
the time, unobligated.
What all these figures show when you total them up is that we are
sending money so fast to agencies, they can't spend it. In other words,
we are throwing money at the agencies far faster than they can spend
it, and it would be wise and prudent of us to send less money--still
with the same rules, still with the same instruction, to utilize their
money better.
The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Congressman
[[Page S2276]]
Obey, has already agreed to do that on the summer jobs program in
certain accounts.
The idea behind this amendment is to take some of the $1 trillion
that is sitting in accounts that is not obligated--in other words, it
will not be utilized this year; it won't be utilized for at least 2
years--and utilize that rather than charge our children.
I have used Madeline's picture a lot, but I don't think you can
overutilize this picture. This little girl was caught on the street
outside of Washington protesting. Obviously, her parents put her up to
it. At the time she was wearing a sign that says: I am already $38,375
in debt and I only own a dollhouse. At the end of this fiscal year, she
will be $45,000 more in debt, and she will still only own a dollhouse.
Why would we want to do that?
This bill adds $500 for every man, woman, and child in this country.
Why wouldn't we want to not charge it to them and utilize what we have
in excess now, the inefficient use of the cash balances we have, to pay
for something we all agree we want to pay for but the disagreement is
over whether we should steal it from our children or actually make hard
choices? These are not even hard choices. These are easy choices. We
were told, when we came to an agreement prior to the April recess, that
the reason this wasn't acceptable in the House is they didn't want to
set the precedent of starting to pay for things when we are spending
money. I would put forth that the American people are ready for us to
start doing that. They are ready for us to start making tough choices.
They think we need to make tough choices.
Out of every dollar we spend, we are borrowing 43 cents against the
future. That is what happened last year. It will actually be probably
higher this year. Maybe not. But somewhere about 43 cents out of every
dollar the Federal Government spends is borrowed. Is there a time that
we should stop and pause and say: Maybe a review is in order of our
priorities, looking at the priorities of the Federal Government? I know
that builds a lot of resistance in this body. But what I would like
somebody to tell me is, when is that time? Is it when the Chinese won't
buy our bonds anymore? Do we wait for the firestorm to come where we
are at critical mass and then the choices are limited and few? Or do we
start making the proper decisions now and live up to the authority and
responsibility given to us?
There is a saying that the easiest thing in the world is to spend
somebody else's money. I also think it is the most addictive thing in
the world. We can see that. It doesn't matter whether it is Republicans
in charge or Democrats. We have not seen the kind of behavior in
Congress that will get our Congress out of the financial problems we
face.
In terms of an almost $4 trillion budget, $18 billion doesn't seem
like a lot, but if you keep doing that every 60 days, in a year you
have done over $120 billion that you will add to the debt. Our kids
will get to pay it back, but they will get to pay it back on compounded
interest.
The interesting thing is what the OMB and CBO agree to. Actually, CBO
came out with the latest numbers. We are going to borrow $9.8 trillion
if we don't change things over the next 9 years, and fully 50 percent
of that will be borrowed money to pay interest on the money we have
already borrowed. Should we not do what is right for the unemployed but
also what is right for the Madelines of this world in terms of
protecting their future?
I call up amendment No. 3723 and ask for its consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment No. 3723.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To pay for the full cost of extending additional unemployment
insurance and other Federal programs by rescinding unspent federal
funds not obligated for any purpose)
At the end of the amendment, insert the following:
SEC. __. RESCISSION OF UNSPENT AND UNCOMMITTED FEDERAL FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of all available unobligated Federal funds, the greater
of $20,000,000,000 and the amount determined necessary under
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139;
124 Stat. 8) to offset the budgetary effect of this Act,
excluding this section, in appropriated discretionary
unexpired funds are rescinded.
(b) Implementation.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall--
(1) identify the accounts and amounts rescinded to
implement subsection (a); and
(2) submit a report to the Secretary of the Treasury and
Congress of the accounts and amounts identified under
paragraph (1) for rescission.
Mr. COBURN. Here is a fairly painless way--just more efficient
management of the money we have--of paying for this needed program
without charging it to the children. We don't have to go to the bond
market to borrow more. We don't have to incur an additional $900
million a year of debt, a tremendous benefit to those who follow us.
The question is, when will we decide to start being responsible?
I am going to be offering two other amendments, if this one is not
agreed to, that will give specific choices. Wait to hear the howling.
In other words, nothing is less important than unemployment insurance.
Said the other way, everything is more important. In other words, we
can't cut anything to pay for unemployment insurance.
Let's talk about that for a minute. Just through competitive bidding,
if we had mandatory competitive bidding in the Federal Government--in
other words, we will not buy things that are not competitively bid--we
would save $62 billion a year. But we have sweetheart deals out the
kazoo. We have earmarks that have noncompetitive bidding. We have
contracts that the government does without competitive bidding. We
could save $62 billion a year by instituting competitive bidding.
Here are examples. It was recently reported that the Defense
Department rewards no-bid work to small contracts for repairs at
military bases costing taxpayers $148 million more than they were
competed for. This is in 1 year on repair contracts. That is just on
the repair of small items on military bases. We could save $148 million
a year. Federal funds were spent by the State of Wisconsin, $47.5
million, on two Spanish-made passenger trains, no competitive bid. The
Legal Services Corporation, 37 out of 38 consultant contracts had not
been competitively bid. The Department of Interior inspector general
issued a report on sole-source contracting within the Department of
Interior total savings; $44.5 million, had they used competitive
bidding.
If we go through all of the agencies, what we come up with is a
potential savings of billions and billions of dollars; as a matter of
fact, enough to extend this same bill for 7 months, if we use
competitive bidding. But that will not be considered important. It is
going to be too important to do that so we will borrow the money from
our children.
Let's look at ourselves. In 2010, the legislative branch received
$4.7 billion in discretionary funding, a 6-percent increase over last
year. Do we know of any other people who got those kinds of increases
who work in small business or private enterprise in a down economy?
Last year and this year alone, every day without this bill we are
adding $4.3 billion to our debt a day. Is that an emergency? I think
that is the real emergency, that we are absolutely stealing opportunity
from our children and grandchildren.
When Members of the Senate or the House don't utilize all their
funds--and I average turning back about $600,000 a year--that money
does not go back to the Treasury. It is consumed in other areas of the
legislative branch. There is a disincentive for Members to be efficient
with the dollars they are allotted as they represent their individual
States. We ought to change that. There ought to be an incentive to be
efficient. We ought to change it to where whatever we turn back goes to
retire the debt, not goes back to spend on something that is not a
priority.
If you look at the Department of Agriculture, for which one of my
amendments will have some recommended eliminations, there are hundreds
of millions of dollars that are wasted every year. But when we offer an
[[Page S2277]]
amendment that is going to have a program that both the Bush
administration and the Obama administration have recommended be
removed, we are going to have people say: Oh, no, you can't do that
because maybe 1,000 people or 1,500 people want that gravy train, when
we have 10 million people unemployed. So we are going to keep the gravy
train for the small numbers and borrow the money from our children and
grandchildren to take care of unemployment benefits.
In 2009, the Department of Agriculture made errors in payments and
overpaid by $4.2 billion in that year alone. Think about that. That is
just the Department of Agriculture. Should we not eliminate that to pay
for unemployment insurance or should we borrow from our children? Which
is it we should do? Should we make the hard choice and force the
Department of Agriculture to clean up its act or should we borrow the
money from our kids? It is a lot easier to just borrow it from our
kids. Then we do not have to work. Oh, by the way, we do not get any of
the complaints from the administration that: You are making our job too
hard--let alone the fact that they are not efficient and oftentimes not
effective.
In 2008, the Agriculture Department had 7,000 different employees
attend conferences around this country. There was $22 million of
expenditures in 2005 alone. The USDA is ranked among the four worst
Federal agencies in paying its travel credit bills on time. As a matter
of fact, they get charged interest because they cannot even pay their
bills on time. Ten percent of their travel cards are in delinquent
status. They have embezzlement cases on their credit cards. But have we
done the work to clean that up? No. Have we gone after the $4.5 billion
in overpayments? No. Mr. President, $4.5 billion a year for 10 years is
$45 billion. Just cleaning up one aspect of improper payments at only
the Department of Agriculture will pay for this bill for 4 months. But
we will not do the hard work. We do the easy work. And the easy work is
to put the credit card into the machine and not think about how that is
going to steal opportunity and potential from those who follow us.
The Department of Defense--everybody says: Well, you can't go after
the Department of Defense. My question is, Why not? It is the only
Federal Government agency that cannot even come close to an audit
anywhere. We cannot even audit their books they are in such a mess. But
what we do know is we can save at least $36.5 billion from the
Department of Defense by putting in competitive bidding, by making
cogent management changes that every small business in this country
runs on in the practices that are there. But it has not been changed.
We have not insisted it be changed. We have not limited funding in
areas that are noncritical to our troops to force the Department of
Defense to come up and save this $36.5 billion.
Mr. President, 10 to 15 percent of everything that is spent in the
Pentagon is wasted. Why wouldn't we go after that? Because somebody
will accuse us of not supporting our troops? Well, what are our troops
fighting for? They are fighting for the future of their kids and our
country. Yet we refuse to look where the payments can be made in a way
that is more efficient in the elimination of waste and fraud, with the
institution of competitive bidding so we are not borrowing $18.2
billion against our kids and grandkids. Why do we refuse to do that? Is
it too hard? Do we love our jobs so much that we love our jobs more
than our children and our grandchildren? I do not think that is the
case. I think the case is that we are focusing on the wrong emergency.
The emergency in front of us is that in 2020 we are going to have a
debt-to-GDP ratio of 90 to 100 percent. Every economist in the world
will agree that will suppress our potential growth by at least 2
percent a year. So we will go in a downward spiral. When you have that
kind of a debt-to-GDP ratio, what happens is the debt service--the
money that pays the interest--is not available to invest in capital and
equipment to grow jobs, to improve efficiencies, to expand our Nation's
economic base. We are adding to that problem by being irresponsible in
terms of paying for an $18.2 billion program.
Over the past 4 years, I have identified in the Federal Government
waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication in excess of $350 billion a year.
When I bring those amendments to the floor, they get voted down--not
because they disagree with them but because we do not have the
political will to make the hard choices.
The Congress, in a historic move, passed the health care bill that is
going to continue to allow $150 billion of fraud a year to come out of
Medicare and Medicaid. We did not do anything to fix it. There are no
significant changes in the health care bill that will address a source
of $150 billion in losses. Why? Because it is too hard? Kids are not
important?
We are at a turning point in our country like we have never been
before. We have never been walking into a financial situation that will
totally limit our ability to get out of a situation. We can come out of
this recession. But if we do not change the trajectory of the way we
spend money and put the government back within the limited role the
Constitution says it is to have, then the future will not only be
economically not bright but not bright from a standpoint of liberty.
I have told my colleagues--and we are going to have this on every
bill that comes before the Senate--it does not matter if it is a
supplemental spending bill for the war, we ought to be paying for it.
Rather than borrowing it from our kids, we ought to be paying for it.
We ought to be making the hard choices about what is not as important
as supporting our troops rather than charging the extra funding to our
grandkids. So we are going to go through at least three cycles of votes
on every bill that comes to the floor that is not paid for, that will
add to the debt. I am not going to serve my last year in the Senate and
say I did not do everything I could to try to put us back on track. So
when we vote that this is an emergency and we do not have to pay for
it, we are not hurting us. You are not hurting Tom Coburn. You are
hurting the generations that follow us.
It would be different if we had an efficient, effective, well-run
Federal Government that was within the bounds of what the Constitution
said we were supposed to be doing. But we are not anywhere close to
that. There is so much fraud, so much waste, so many well-connected
goodies going to the well-endowed and well-heeled in this country
because they have a connection politically, and we need to clean it
out.
Everything ought to be competitively bid. There is no reason for it
not to be competitively bid. To pass up that $65 billion a year because
we do not do it--there is another thing we do. We spend $8 billion a
year maintaining properties the Federal Government does not want. Think
about that. For 3 years, I have tried to get through real property
reform and cannot get it through. We either need to tear these
structures down so we quit spending money on them or sell them, but we
should not continue to spend $8 billion a year on buildings and
properties we do not need. We have not done a thing to solve that
problem in the last 3 years.
I have a book full of further examples. Just think about this: We
want people to go into math, engineering, science, and technology.
Everybody agrees with that. We know if we can get our younger students
going into those areas, that is where they are going to have their
greatest benefits of having a wonderful living in utilizing those
skills.
The Federal Government has 105 different programs through six
different agencies to incentivize math, engineering, science, and
technology. The administrative cost for 105 different programs is
ridiculous, and not 1 of them has a metric on it of whether it is
working. So every time somebody raises the issue, some Senator comes
and creates another new program, and we pass it, and we never look at
what we are doing already. We do not eliminate things that are not
effective. We do not put metrics on it to say we are going to look at
this every year, and if it is not working we are going to get rid of it
or we are going to fix it, and we are not going to create another
program. Yet we have 105 different programs.
In the month of December, my staff found 640 separate instances just
like that where we have duplication of programs across government
agencies. In
[[Page S2278]]
the last debt limit extension, we passed one of my amendments that said
the GAO must report to us a governmentwide assessment of all the
duplications in all the programs because Congress does not know it. We
do not know what is out there. So we see another problem. It does not
matter that we may have 105 programs working on it; we go create
another one. That is called incompetence. It is also called laziness.
Just inside the Department of Education are 230 duplicative programs
and $10 billion in waste, fraud, and mismanagement--230. Why? Because
we refuse to do the hard work of oversight.
So when we vote on this amendment, what we are going to be voting on
is whether we have the courage to start making choices. If you vote to
defeat this amendment, what you are saying is you lack the courage to
do the hard work to pay for something out of waste today and
mismanagement of Federal funds and you think the Madelines of this
world ought to pay for that lack of integrity and lack of hard work.
And there is not another reason for it.
We are going to hear why you should not vote for this. We are going
to hear why it is going to be hard if we take $18.2 billion out of the
management accounts of all these agencies. It is just going to be, out
of what is there, about 3 percent of the cash that is sitting idle--
about 3 percent of what will be idle in 2011. What is idle this year,
it will be less than 3 percent; it will be about 2.5 percent. Yet we
are going to vote it down. We are going to vote it down because we care
more about making a political point than doing the hard work of getting
our country back on track.
We do not have forever to get our country back on track. If we get to
90 to 100 percent of our GDP, the job of making these decisions becomes
3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 times more difficult because we will have
less growth. We have a precarious economy right now. It is coming out
of a recession. We want that growth to boom. We want those jobs to be
created. When we borrow more money, we are putting a brake on that.
So if we can utilize the money we already have, we get the
stimulatory effect of getting people unemployment insurance that buys
the necessities of life, but we are not adding to the debt, which
depresses the economy.
I will close for right now on this amendment. I will ask for the yeas
and nays at a time that is agreeable to the majority leader.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest 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 (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we seem to be muddling along here with
short-term extensions and incremental stimulus bills to deal with a
failure as this Congress decides what we are going to do about
unemployment insurance and physicians' pay and things of that matter
that are in the bill.
I believe this is an important discussion, I do, and I am worried
about where we are. This legislation before us would add another $18.1
billion to the national debt. Just like that, another $18 billion.
Oddly, that is almost the same amount of money that was tacked on to
the Defense bill last year, and I produced a chart about it and
demonstrated what happens when we get into that mode of appropriating,
when we forget what our budget is and we treat everything as an
emergency and just ignore our budget and spend. The truth is, this
cannot continue.
Every witness we have had before the Budget Committee--every one--
two-thirds of which are usually called by our Democratic leader, and
usually about one-third are Republican witnesses--have all said our
spending and our debt is at an unsustainable rate. They didn't say that
lightly. What they meant was it is unsustainable. We cannot continue to
spend like this and to borrow this amount of money on top of the $800
billion that is now being spent that we appropriated last year--$800
billion. Every penny of that $800 billion is borrowed because we don't
have the money. We are already in debt to fund another $800 billion in
stimulus, and we will have to, of course, borrow that.
I think a lot of people haven't understood that. People tell me, when
I am in my State, that they are shocked, stunned, and worried about our
spending. They know we are spending too much, but I don't think they
know how much we actually are spending and how much we are adding to
our debt and that it can threaten the future viability of the American
economy for a short-term benefit.
I will just remind my colleagues that the history of stimulating an
economy with borrowed money has not been too good. If it was, Japan
would have a booming economy today. They have been trying this year
after year and it has not worked for them.
We were told we would have an unemployment rate that would stop at 8
percent if we would just pass this $800 billion and borrow the money
and spend it today to stimulate the economy. It sounds so good. It
sounds so tempting. But I didn't believe it was an appropriate
allocation of that much money, No. 1; and No. 2, that the money we were
being asked to spend was going to be spent in ways that would stimulate
the economy and create jobs.
I cited here before the vote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by
Gary Becker, the Nobel Prize winner from the University of Chicago. Mr.
Becker said that, in his opinion, the bill fell far short of being the
kind of stimulative spending that would create jobs and help this
economy bounce back and, therefore, he had to oppose it. Mr. Becker is
in his seventies and he was just sharing his experience. He had another
person participate with him in the research that led them to that
recommendation. Was Mr. Becker proven right or not?
The great tragedy--the biggest tragedy with the stimulus package--was
what little stimulus we got. If you spend $800 billion, it is
breathtaking how much that can be done with it. The Alabama general
fund budget for the entire State, including State government and State
troopers and all of that is less than $2 billion. But $800 billion?
That is huge. So I am worried about what we are doing.
At the time the legislation passed--this stimulus package that added
so much to our debt--the Congressional Budget Office, whose Director is
hired by our Democratic majority, had good people working in that
office. They try to do a good job. They have some economists who I
think have been successful in years past at predicting things. They
said: Yes, if you spend $800 billion in the next 2 to 3 years, you will
have an economic benefit during that period, there is no doubt. They
didn't predict a lot--not nearly as much as a lot of people said it
would do--but they predicted some benefit. But do you know what they
said? They said over 10 years that this economic spending, this
borrowing to spend, would actually weaken the economy and the total
growth over 10 years would be less than if we did not pass the stimulus
package at all. It does appear if they were in error, their error was
that we did not get as much growth as they predicted in the short run.
But when you spend $800 billion, surely you are going to get some
benefit--some, economically. But we have not gotten what we need. It
was not crafted in that way.
It was a bill that said it was going to fix crumbling infrastructure,
and what happened? We spent less than 4 percent of this money on
bridges and roads. We spent it mostly on social spending, we spent it
on State aid, we spent it on a lot of different things. But at least
when you build a road you have a highway that is there and it will be
there for another 50 or 100 years, making the Nation more productive
and efficient. But this other kind of spending has produced so little
for us. I express my concern about that.
All of this is where we are. The point is simply this. The spending
track we are on is unsustainable because in 2008 our total public debt
was $5.8 trillion. It is more than that if you consider the gross debt,
the internal debt, but this is what is held by private investors from
around the world and in the United States--$5.8 trillion. By 2013 it
will double to $l1.8 trillion; by 2019 it will be $17.3 trillion, and
there is no plan to pay it down. But in 2019, 2020, we are talking
about deficits of almost another $1 trillion a year. So we are not even
close to moving to a balanced
[[Page S2279]]
budget, much less paying down this debt.
Where does the money come from? As I said, we borrow that. This chart
shows what the borrowing costs are. When you borrow money, people pay
interest, you pay them interest on the money they give you. They loan
you money, you pay them rent on the money. They do not give you money
for no good reason.
In 2009 we paid $187 billion in interest that 1 year. Remember,
Alabama's general fund budget is $2 billion; the Federal highway bill a
year or so ago was $40 billion. We spent $187 billion, almost five
times the highway bill. But look what happens in 2020 after we spent
all this money and run up our debt--$840 billion in interest payments
in 1 year. That exceeds the Defense bill, it exceeds any other bill in
our budget. It is a stunning number. These are Congressional Budget
Office numbers based on the President's budget. Surely something will
intervene. We will elect somebody, somewhere--in this Senate,
probably--who is going to say no to this because the American people
are getting hot about it. Some people are going to be wondering why
they are no longer here, if they keep up with this kind of stuff.
They say don't worry about this, it is just $18 billion, and after
the $800 billion, $18 billion may look small. But let me show you what
I demonstrated previously with $18 billion when you cheat, or you add
it and bust the budget by one $18 billion expenditure.
In 2010 we slipped another $18 billion on the Defense appropriations
bill, and added it to the debt. People said don't worry, it is just $18
billion. But it goes into the baseline. It goes into your basic funding
of the government. So what happens next year when you say OK, we are
not going to spend this $18 billion. They say: You are cutting
spending. We cannot do that. You can't cut spending. Besides, we need
an increase in spending--inflation was 2 percent. We need at least 2
percent.
The State Department got a 30-percent increase in funding this past
year. The Environmental Protection Agency got a 30-percent increase in
funding.
Look at that. What if you do it another year? You come up with
another $18 billion. You got around the budget, you declared it an
emergency event and you spent another $18 billion. It is not just $18
billion because you have $18 billion in the first baseline, you add
another to it and that year it has cost the taxpayers $36 billion.
Let's say the next year, 2013, now you are adding $18 billion to $36
billion and it is $54 billion in your baseline. You have another budget
gimmick to add $18 billion and you end up with $72 billion that year.
This is how we get out of control. And you end up, that $18 billion,
when it goes into the baseline and we do not understand how it
occurred, increases our spending to a degree that we should not do. So
that ends up, if you add it up, to $990 billion from an $18-billion-a-
year gimmick, manipulation, violation of the budget.
What I want to say is this bill before us today violates the budget.
It is for unemployment compensation, it is for other things that are
not emergencies. They are part of our governmental operation that needs
to be paid for. Luckily, we have some money to pay for it. We have it
in an unspent stimulus package. We have some opportunities that our
Democratic colleagues have said they could take money from in the past.
If we put all those together we could pay for this, fund this bill
without having to borrow it all.
I am at a point where I am not inclined to go along with this
anymore. I think the American people are of the same mind. What we have
to do is we have to lead and we have to be responsible like our
Governors. They are having to face challenges. Our mayors are having to
face challenges. They are making tough decisions. But not us. We spend
more, not less. We are spending more. I believe we have done enough. We
have gone beyond what is logical and reasonable. We are in the realm of
reckless and dangerous and it is time for us to begin having a national
discussion in this country and in this Congress about how much we can
borrow to spend today to make our life better today and then shift that
debt to the future.
The reason CBO said that the $800 billion would not advance the
economy over 10 years, it actually would hurt the economy over 10
years, is that you crowd out investment. If the government borrows $800
billion, it is not available for private people who need to go out and
borrow money. It has already been loaned to the government. It crowds
out, the economists said, private borrowing.
Also, we have an interest on it that we have to carry and pay every
year that is a burden on every generation. Every young person after us
will carry that interest burden. It hurts them and makes them less able
to prosper and to have economic growth. So it is a moral question: How
much can we afford to benefit ourselves this very day and shift it to
our children and to what extent do we need to be responsible? I think
it is time to get responsible, so reluctantly I feel an obligation to
vote no to this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of the comments
of my distinguished colleague from Alabama. Of course I agree with
virtually every single Member of the Senate that these programs need to
be extended. But I also agree with many Members here, and the huge
majority of the American people, that we need to pay for it. We cannot
keep running up the deficit as though it had no consequence to us and
our economy and our children and grandchildren. The American people get
it. Certainly my constituents in Louisiana get it. They say of course
you need to extend necessary programs and of course you cannot run up
the deficit to do it every 2 months.
Mr. President, $18 billion--the distinguished Senator from Alabama
has used the figure over and over, and he is right, $18 billion, but it
is $18 billion for 2 months of extension. So we are supposed to come
back every 2 months and put another $18 billion on our kids' and
grandkids' tab? It is $108 billion over a year of increasing deficit
and debt that is already at historic levels. That is crazy.
We can do better. We can meet both of those commonsense objectives of
the American people. We can extend necessary programs and we can do it
in a way that does not add to deficit and debt. We have several ways to
do that. We have a menu of proposals. We will have votes a little later
on about doing that. In fact, before the recess we had discussions on
the floor of the Senate and we had come to agreement here in the Senate
about an extension without increasing the deficit and debt.
Unfortunately it was rejected by the Speaker of the House. So it is not
as though this goal of achieving both of those important objectives is
impossible. It is absolutely possible and many different Members have
laid out how to get there.
Let's follow the common sense of the American people. Let's follow
the common sense of folks all across Louisiana who say of course you
need to extend necessary programs and of course you cannot add to the
deficit and debt every month, every 2 months that you need to do this,
$18 billion a pop, $108 billion. That is a good part of $1 trillion
over 1 year.
I want to focus on a particular part of this package that is
particularly galling, quite frankly, for someone such as me from
Louisiana. A tiny part of this overall bill is extending the National
Flood Insurance Program. Again, I hope everyone agrees we need to
extend the National Flood Insurance Program. I certainly agree with
that. I have certainly fought for that. It is about 1 percent of this
bill.
Do you know what percent it is of the debt increase, the deficit
increase? It is zero percent of that because that extension does not
even increase the deficit or debt in any way. So it should not be held
up by this debate in any way, shape, or form--a necessary program, 1
percent of the bill in terms of dollar figures, zero deficit and debt
increase, zero impact on that central issue. Why can't we at least come
together and extend that necessary program immediately and not have
that held up at all? It never should have been held up before the
recess. It should not be held up now. There is a simple way to fix that
and the simple way is to take that portion of the bill out; to extend
it immediately. I do not think there is any opposition to the
underlying extension of the program. It has zero impact on the deficit
and debt
[[Page S2280]]
so there is no reason for it to be caught up in this other debate.
With that in mind, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the immediate consideration of S. 3203. That is a bill I have
introduced that extends the National Flood Insurance Program for the
same amount of time as this underlying bill but does it separately. I
ask that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) Is there objection?
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I might
note that the Senator seeks to take up and pass one of the specific
provisions in the underlying bill, section 7 in the underlying bill.
Since the Senator seems to be endorsing a part of the underlying bill,
and the pending Baucus amendment, I might ask the Senator to amend his
request to provide for the passage of all of the underlying bill and
pending Baucus amendment.
Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to do that in a version that is paid for,
incorporating the very sensible, commonsense objections that have been
offered to pay for all of this extension. So I would be happy to amend
my request in that manner if the Senator would agree to it.
Mr. BAUCUS. So the Senator is not willing to amend his request for
passage of all of the underlying bill containing the section 7?
Mr. VITTER. Not if it increases the deficit and debt $108 billion a
year. No, sir, I am not. And the American people are not. And the
American people are getting fed up with it.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am constrained to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming my time, the suggestion was pretty simple.
There is the one element of this bill which is a necessary program for
all of the United States, particularly for flood-prone areas. It is 1
percent of the overall bill, but it is zero percent of the deficit and
debt increase. It has no impact on deficit and debt. So the suggestion
was pretty simple: Why don't we take that out? Why have that stalled
because of this broader debate? Let's take that out and pass it. There
should be no objection to that. Everybody is for the program. It does
not increase the deficit and debt. Unfortunately, there is objection
from the Democratic chairman.
I hope we have given the chairman and other Members of the majority
the detailed proposal. It is, as the chairman said, taking section 7
out and passing it separately because it has no deficit and debt
impact. I would urge the chairman and others to look at that and to
hopefully agree to that because--I heard the objection. I don't
understand the basis for the objection, and I would be happy to hear
the basis for the objection because I just don't understand it.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana supports part
of the bill. I would just ask the Senator to broaden his mind to
support all of the bill. That way, we can get this done.
Mr. VITTER. Sort of like the ``Louisiana purchase'' with health care
reform. Let's put one sweetener in the bill to pass something really
bad--a $108 billion debt increase over a year. Let's take one hostage,
including folks who are held hostage who need this insurance, to pass a
debt increase that big because otherwise that is a stinker.
I get it. I have seen that deal played out over and over, including
with the ``Louisiana purchase'' for health care reform. I am not taking
that offer, no offense. I hope the Senator will reconsider my very
reasonable proposal.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there are a number of reasons to oppose
the amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. First, it would
reverse the considered judgment of the Congress as expressed through
the annual appropriations process. Congress has spoken on
appropriations that are authorized and obligated, and his amendment
defers that considered judgment. I will defer, frankly, to the chairman
of the Appropriations Committee to address these concerns in greater
detail when he arrives on the floor.
Second, the House of Representatives has made it clear that it views
unemployment insurance and the other provisions in this bill as
emergency provisions. The House has made clear that it would send the
bill back to us again if we adopted the amendment by the Senator from
Oklahoma. That is clear. I have had conversations with the House. It is
clear that it would be sent back, and that would needlessly delay much
needed aid to the people receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
Let's not forget that there are so many people--200,000 people, in
fact--who are not receiving benefits because we let the legislation
expire. It has expired. So 200,000 people today who are entitled to
unemployment insurance payments are not getting them, and if we send
the bill back to the House again, that is further delay. It will not be
long before that number of 200,000 is going to double to 400,000. That
is just playing games with the lives of unemployed Americans.
Third, and perhaps most dramatically, the amendment would delegate
powers to rescind $20 billion to the unelected Director of the Office
of Management and Budget. This would be a breathtaking abdication of
Congress's power of the purse. In the Federalist Papers, the power of
the purse is described as the most singular power to protect the rights
of the free people. We should not quickly surrender that power, and the
Senator's amendment would surrender that power to the tune of $20
billion. The Senator's amendment would give the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget a blank check. It would give him the power to
cut whatever unobligated balances he should choose. This is truly a
sweeping grant of power, and it is truly a dramatic surrender of that
power.
The Senator from Oklahoma talked about budget deficits. He and I
agree. We do, as a nation, need to address the budget deficits. As a
rhetorical question, he asked: When is the time to make the changes to
balance the budget? The Senator asked the question as if the answer
were self-evident, but the answer is not self-evident.
A wise person once said: For every difficult question, there is
usually a very simple answer and it is usually not true. This is an
example of that maxim at work.
The simple answer in this case would be to require the government to
balance the budget every year, year-in and year-out. That is pretty
simple. That answer, even though it sounds nice, would be wrong. The
Nation should balance the budget over the course of a business cycle.
We should spend in a recession and exercise more discipline when the
country is very prosperous to get the budget under control.
But the Nation should not attempt to balance the budget in the grips
of a recession. Why is that? That is because in a recession, business
slows down. People actually pay less tax revenue to the government. In
a recession, spending on automatic stabilizer programs automatically
increases, like unemployment benefits, food stamps, and many others.
That is what should happen during a recession. To do otherwise would be
economically disastrous.
To try to balance the budget in the grips of a recession would mean
raising taxes or cutting spending even more than is automatically
occurring. That would reduce the amount of demand in the economy, and
that would further slow economic growth and put even more people out of
work. So most reputable economists would say you should not try to
balance the budget in a recession. There is pretty broad agreement on
that point among reputable economists.
So that is why it does not make sense to try to balance the budget
this year. Yes, we should balance the budget over the business cycle,
but we should not try to raise taxes and cut spending even more to
balance the budget right now. And that is why it does make sense to
spend money on unemployment insurance benefits as an emergency matter.
As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said, spending on
unemployment insurance benefits is one of the most effective things
Congress can do to increase economic growth. It is one of the most
effective things we can do to save and create jobs. For every dollar we
spend on unemployment insurance benefits, the Congressional Budget
Office says economic growth is increased by up to $1.90; it is
[[Page S2281]]
almost a 2-to-1 return on our investment. That is a pretty sound
investment.
That is the economic reason why it makes sense to spend now on
unemployment insurance benefits and to balance the budget over a longer
period, but even more compelling is the human reason. The human reason
is people such as the single dad in Missoula, MT, who depends on the
extra unemployment insurance benefits to support his daughters and put
food on the table. He called the Montana unemployment office, and we
learned that this fellow said he honestly did not know how he was going
to make ends meet without these benefits. The Senate should not be
playing games with the lives of people like this man and his daughter
in Missoula and all of the other men and women around the country who
desperately depend on unemployment payments to make ends meet. Congress
should not balance the budget on the backs of the unemployed.
Last of all, we must reject amendments like these. That is why we
should pass the underlying bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this is the third time we find ourselves
debating the same rescission amendment that sounds like good policy on
first blush but in fact is not.
Members need to understand that this amendment is irresponsible
governing, and causes harm to our national and international security,
and to our economy.
Members on the other side of the aisle have frequently criticized
the majority party for asking them to vote on measures that they have
not had a chance to thoroughly read or comprehend.
But that is certainly what Members are being asked to do today.
It is irresponsible to vote in support of this amendment that
indiscriminately cuts $20 billion from discretionary projects and
services given that we do not know what programs are impacted by such
significant cuts.
On January 27 of this year I spoke at some length about an almost
identical amendment offered by the junior Senator from Oklahoma, and
again on March 3 about an almost identical amendment offered by the
junior Senator from Kentucky. Today it is the junior Senator from
Oklahoma's turn to offer the amendment again.
I would like to take just a few moments to remind my colleagues of
why they voted against this amendment twice already, and why I hope
they will again choose to vote against this financially irresponsible
and harmful amendment.
The majority of unobligated balances are not eligible for rescission
under this amendment because they are, in fact, mandatory funds.
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, and our homeland security.
I have mentioned this before, but need to mention it again because
nothing has changed between January, March and today.
While we cannot say with certainty which programs are impacted by
this amendment, here are some of the expected impacts based on current
discretionary unobligated balances available.
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 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 now could require the Navy to cancel
contracts for ships under construction and layoff thousands of workers
across our Nation's shipyards.
In terms of our veterans who have returned from war or have fought
bravely in past wars, this amendment could impact the construction of
new hospitals by the Veterans Administration. It takes a few years to
build a hospital. The Veterans Administration requests full funding for
a construction project in the first year. As a result, the VA has 43
active major construction projects at various stages of completion
totaling over $1.6 billion in unobligated balances. This could be wiped
out. Over 49,000 construction jobs would be terminated with the loss of
that funding, further delaying critical services to our brave men and
women who have served. We made a solemn promise to them.
Rescinding unobligated balances in the Department of Homeland
Security could 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 could 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 Senator from Oklahoma argues that if funding is not spent
immediately, then it is not necessary. This reasoning is irresponsible
when it comes to overseeing taxpayers' dollars and the capitalization
of large projects such as ships, hospitals, and satellites. I am
certain everyone in this Chamber knows that a ship is not built in a
year. I hope everyone knows that a hospital is not built and equipped
in a year. I hope everyone knows that satellites are not built and
launched every year.
In addition to the potential impact on large procurements, this
amendment could impact the funding of programs the Congress voted on
and agreed to provide only a few months ago. The impact of these cuts
could have significant consequences for many critical services such as
HUD programs providing affordable housing to our Nation's low-income
citizens--we had a great debate on that here--or funding for climate
change research or funding to purchase explosive detection equipment
for airports.
This is a bad amendment with bad consequences. It is time for us, the
Members of the Senate, to act responsibly. We have a well established
process for funding the Federal Government. It involves the Budget
Committee that sets our allocations. It involves the consideration and
approval by the Senate of every appropriations bill. I can assure my
colleagues in this Chamber that the Appropriations Committee takes this
responsibility seriously. Every agency budget is reviewed and oversight
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 such as this amendment.
This amendment is not based on careful review, would harm many
worthwhile programs, and fails to meet the test of proper oversight.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3723, as Modified
Mr. COBURN. I send to the desk a modification of the pending
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his
amendment at this time.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the end of the amendment, insert the following:
SEC. __. RESCISSION OF UNSPENT AND UNCOMMITTED FEDERAL FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of all available unobligated Federal funds, the greater
of $40,000,000,000 the amount determined necessary under the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 124
Stat. 8) to offset the budgetary effect of this Act,
excluding this section, in appropriated discretionary
unexpired funds are rescinded.
(b) Implementation.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall--
(1) identify the accounts and amounts rescinded to
implement subsection (a); and
(2) submit a report to the Secretary of the Treasury and
Congress of the accounts and amounts identified under
paragraph (1) for rescission.
[[Page S2282]]
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am prepared for the vote anytime the
chairman of the Finance Committee is ready to proceed.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to table the Coburn amendment and
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
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 Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 111 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Wyden
NAYS--46
Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Klobuchar
Kyl
LeMieux
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Byrd
Leahy
Whitehouse
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are not in a quorum call; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republican leader and I have discussed
this vote that will take place at 5:45, if the unanimous consent
request is granted, and we are going to keep the vote open for a while.
There are a number of things people have to do this evening, and there
is one Senator, because of the funeral of his best friend, who is going
to be getting here late, so we will keep the vote open until he returns
from the funeral. Everyone knows that. I have spoken to the Republican
leader and he is fine with that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:45 p.m.
today the motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by
which the Budget Act was not waived be agreed to, the motion to
reconsider be agreed to, and the Senate then proceed to a vote on the
Baucus motion to waive all applicable Budget Act points of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cobell v. Salazar Settlement
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while we are waiting, I want to speak
about two issues. First is something called the Cobell settlement,
which perhaps many will not know about. It is the settlement of a class
action lawsuit against the federal government for mismanaging the trust
accounts of American Indians for well over a century.
The trust accounts for American Indians come from property that
belonged to the Indians that the federal government holds in trust. The
trust was managed by the U.S. Interior Department and many accounts
over a long period of time were mismanaged. Revenue from oil wells,
from extraction of minerals, and revenue from leasing lands for cattle
never showed up in the accounts or mailboxes of the Indians who owned
the property. Many of these Indians and members of the class action
have long since passed away, not having survived the 14 years of this
lawsuit. The lawsuit has been ongoing for some 14 years now, and the
Federal court has become very impatient while waiting for Congressional
approval.
At long last, the Interior Secretary, Secretary Salazar, negotiated
an agreement to settle the Cobell suit. Friday, April 16th, is the
third date which the court set for Congress to act on this settlement.
We will miss this date just as we missed the first two dates. The court
has just now indicated that it will approve a fourth date by which the
Congress must act to approve this settlement of Indian claims. The
judge has also indicated that if Congress does not act, he will invite
some Members of the Congress to his court to talk about why action was
not taken. That would probably be an interesting constitutional issue.
In any event, the judge in this case is very impatient and wants to
see the settlement approved by Congress.
The first Americans, Indians who are owed this money and for whom the
settlement was acceptable and, the Interior Secretary, who has called
me many times urging approval of the settlement, are also very
impatient. I hope we will not miss a fourth deadline established by the
Federal court.
Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber and in the House
of Representatives have an obligation. Literally, money was
stolen from American Indians, from property they owned and
the income from that property that was supposed to go for
their assistance and living conditions because it was owned
by them, and in many cases these accounts were mismanaged,
and in some cases the money was stolen.
This settlement, which will be paid from the United States Judgement
Fund, is fair and is long overdue. It will settle a lawsuit that has
languished for about 14 years. I hope, in working with the House of
Representatives, we will not miss another deadline. Perhaps if we do,
the judge will ask some Members of Congress to visit with him. We will
see what happens as a result of that.
Mr. President, on another matter, I ask unanimous consent to speak
for 5 more minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would not criticize another Member of
the Senate on the floor of the Senate--certainly not by name--unless I
first had told the Senator I was intending to do so. I have done that,
and I will shortly explain why.
There is a man named GEN Michael Walsh, a commander in the Corps of
Engineers. He is an extraordinary general. He is a one-star general, a
brigadier general, and he has been recommended for the rank of major
general. That recommendation was made nearly 6 months ago.
Six months ago, the Armed Services Committee, with the support of
Senator Levin, the chairman, and Senator John McCain, the ranking
member, unanimously approved the promotion to major general for Michael
Walsh. Six months ago that action was taken in the committee. There has
been no major general rank for General Walsh because it has been held
up on the Senate floor, with what is called a hold, by a Member of the
Senate, Senator Vitter from Louisiana.
The fact is, this is an extraordinary general, a general who has been
to war. This is a general who went to Iraq to fight for this country.
This general has 30 years of distinguished service to America, a
patriot. He doesn't make the policy at the Corps of Engineers. This is
a commander who executes the policy at the Corps of Engineers.
[[Page S2283]]
My colleague, in letters to the Corps of Engineers, is upset with the
Corps of Engineers and is demanding they do certain things that the
Corps in some cases cannot and in other cases will not do because it is
unwise. Some of the demands have been met where the Corps believed it
was appropriate, although it has not been funded yet because that has
to be done by the Appropriations Committee. The Corps cannot meet other
demands. I opposed one of the significant ones brought to the
Appropriations Committee, and upon my opposition, the full
Appropriations Committee voted against it. So it is not going to
happen.
But to hold up a general's rank to major general, hold up his
promotion and have him now 6 months behind other generals both in pay
and promotion and opportunity is just unfair. It is just not fair. This
is not someone who can fix the aches and pains and ills and concerns of
my colleague from Louisiana.
This is a general who is a patriot and has served this country for 30
years. I don't think he ought to be used as a pawn in some concerns
about water policy or concerns about issues in New Orleans or Louisiana
dealing with flood control and responding to the needs of that city and
that State. As chairman of the committee that funds energy and water
programs, I can tell you that we have sent billions and billions of
dollars down to Louisiana and to New Orleans--I am proud to have done
it--in order to say, after Hurricane Katrina and during the rebuilding,
to the people of Louisiana: You are not alone, we are with you. We have
spent a lot of money doing that. I am proud to have been a part of
that.
But the demands that are required now by Senator Vitter in order for
him to lift a hold on the move to the rank of major general for a one-
star general who has served this country for 30 years and fought in
Iraq, in my judgment, are unfair. We should not hold a general's
promotion and career hostage to the demands of one Member of the
Senate. That is exactly what has happened for 6 months.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a January 13
letter from my colleague to the Corps of Engineers. It is a letter from
my colleague, Senator Vitter; a March 12 letter in response to that
letter by the Corps of Engineers to Senator Vitter; a March 16 letter
to the Corps of Engineers from Senator Vitter; and, finally, a March 19
letter back to Senator Vitter from the Corps of Engineers.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, January 13, 2010.
Brigadier General Michael J. Walsh,
Commander, Mississippi Valley Division, United States Army
Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
Dear General Walsh: Here is a detailed brief of the issues
I would like you to address for me to release my current
nomination hold. This list was also hand delivered to you and
your staff in our meeting November 5, 2009.
Issues for Resolution:
Outfall Canals/Pump to the River
Request: Corps provide a formal commitment to complete a
comprehensive risk analysis associated with the three options
laid out in the Corps pumping station report within 18
months, suspend any activity unless the activity is
consistent with options 2 and 2a described in the Corps
report, and conduct a feasibility level of analysis
(including a cost estimate) for the project.
Ouachita Levees
Request: Corps performs bank stabilization or levee
setbacks as needed to stabilize the flood control structures.
Cite past practice by the Corps in performing levee
setbacks under FCA of 1928 and the MR&T Program, or,
Raise the issue that much of the bank caving has been
caused by barge wakes, which are the result of the federal
navigation channel project, or,
Use P.L. 84-99, 33 USC 701, Flood Emergencies.
agmac
* * *
____
Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant
Secretary, Civil Works,
Washington, DC, March 12, 2010.
Hon. David Vitter,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Vitter: This letter is in response to your
letter of January 13, 2010, and follow up to meetings held on
November 19, 2009 and March 2, 2010, regarding issues that
you would like the Army Corps Engineers to address in order
for you to release your current nomination hold on Brigadier
General (P) Michael J. Walsh. We have thoroughly analyzed all
nine issues. Our response to each issue raised in your
January 13, 2010 letter follows below. We have made every
effort to provide you the best way forward within the limits
of existing law, funding and policy for each of the nine
issues.
Issue 1: Outfall Canals/Pump to the River
REQUEST: Corps provide a formal commitment to complete a
comprehensive risk analysis associated with the three options
laid out in the Corps pumping station report within 18
months, suspend any activity unless the activity is
consistent with options 2 and 2a described in the Corps
report, and conduct a feasibility level of analysis
(including a cost estimate) for the period.
In fulfillment of the requests of the Louisiana Coastal
Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA), the Southeast
Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East, Jefferson Parish,
and the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, which you
have supported, the Corps previously agreed to construct the
permanent structures and pump stations with adaptability
measures that will facilitate addition of Options 2 or 2a
features should either option be authorized and funded by
Congress for construction or undertaken and funded by non-
Federal interests in the future. In light of the limited
service life of the existing temporary pumps (estimated to
expire in 2011-2013), it is vitally important for the
protection of the citizens of New Orleans that a permanent
pumping solution be implemented as quickly as possible, and
suspension of any activity not consistent with Options 2 and
2a would create an unacceptable risk to the citizens. The
Corps will conduct a supplementary risk reduction analysis as
part of the detailed engineering feasibility study, including
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance
documentation, for Options 2 and 2a, if Congress appropriates
funds for the study. When completed we would transmit the
study to the Office of Management and Budget for
consideration of submission to Congress for appropriate
action. This study would provide the information necessary to
allow the Congress to make an informed decision on
authorization of Option 2 or 2a. As we discussed, we estimate
that it will cost $15.6 million and take approximately 36
months to complete this study (including NEPA compliance).
Issue 2: Ouachita River Levees
REQUEST: Corps performs bank stabilization or levee
setbacks as needed to stabilize the flood control structures.
At you urging, the Corps is using Public Law (PL) 84-99 to
address bank caving associated with recent flood events. We
have identified 8 to 9 discrete sites, addressing bank caving
along approximately one percent of the Ouachita River and
Tributaries project, where it appears that damages have
occurred as a result of flood events during the period of
October 2009 to January 2010. We anticipate that the cost of
pursuing the repair work at these sites will cost
approximately $10-$20 million.
The Corps' assessment indicates that the bank caving along
the Ouachita River is not attributable to vessel wash. In
addition, the bank caving is not associated with features of
the Mississippi Rivers and Tributaries (MR&T) project. The
authorization for the Ouachita River and Tributaries projects
specifies that levee maintenance is a non-Federal
responsibility. Congress has not enacted a general provision
of law that would supplant this non-Federal responsibility or
that would allow the Corps to correct levee damages that are
not associated with flood events.
Issue 3: Acadia Gulf of Mexico Access Channel (AGMAC)
REQUEST: Corps work with the state (CPRA) using existing
CWPPRA projects along Freshwater Bayou to develop a plan to
build significant bank stabilization and spoils build-up
within the 902 limit before January 1, 2010.
The AGMAC request envisions the placement of dredged
material along the Freshwater Bayou and refers, directly or
indirectly, to two distinct authorities: 1) the Port of
Iberia navigation project authorized in Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 at a total cost of
$131,250,000; and 2) the CWPPRA authorization that provides
for the creation, protection, restoration, and/or enhancement
of wetlands to provide for the long-term conservation of such
wetlands and dependent fish and wildlife populations. The
Port of Iberia authorization directs the Corps to ``use
available dredged material . . . [on] the west bank of the
Freshwater Bayou to provide incidental storm surge protection
. . .'' This authorization would allow the Corps to place
available dredged material from the Port of Iberia navigation
project along the west bank of the Freshwater Bayou provided
this work provides incidental storm surge protection and is
within the applicable section 902 cost limitation. You are
correct that CWPPRA provides independent authority to create
wetlands along the Freshwater Bayou. The Corps will work with
the State and others to explore use of CWPPRA authority to
implement a project along the Freshwater Bayou. The CWPPRA
Task Force identifies and selects which projects will be
pursued under this authority. If the project is selected as a
nominee, then the CWPPRA Technical Committee will consider it
at an April 4, 2010 public meeting for further evaluation as
a Priority Project List 20 Candidate Project.
[[Page S2284]]
Issue 4: Morganza to the Gulf
REQUEST: Corps restart the lock design on the Houma
Navigation Canal, provide separate authority for the Houma
Navigation Lock project or the next WRDA bill, and help
expedite the 404 permitting process on existing projects.
The Houma Lock is part of the Morganza to the Gulf
hurricane and storm damage risk reduction project, which was
authorized in WRDA 2007 at a total cost of $886,700,000.
Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the levee design
criteria for this project changed and, as a result, the
project can no longer be built for the amount envisioned by
the Congressional authorization. Some design work on the
Houma Lock had been completed based on the design criteria
used in the original project plan, but because this criteria
had changed, the Corps halted further design work on the Lock
pending the redesign of the overall project plan that takes
the new criteria into account. The Corps is not authorized to
construct the Houma Lock as an independent, freestanding
project or as a separable element of the Morganza to the Gulf
project, and additional authorization will be required to
construct the Morganza to the Gulf project in accordance with
the new design criteria. The Post Authorization Change report
required to support the request for additional authorization
is scheduled to be completed by December 2012. The Corps is
willing to resume design of the Houma Lock using the new
criteria, but has insufficient funds to resume this effort
and complete the overall project plan. The Corps will work
with others to expedite the Section 404 permitting process.
Additionally, enclosed, as a legislative drafting service, is
draft legislation for separate authority for the Houma
Navigation Lock.
Issue 5: West Bank and Vicinity
REQUEST: Corps provide for O&M costs associated with
proposed navigation project on the Algiers Canal. Corps
policy states: (1) ``If the waterway users are subject to
fuel taxes paid into the IWTF, there are not any non-Federal
cost sharing requirements in connection with the Federal
project improvements to the waterway (not for LERRD,
construction, or OMRR&R)''; (2) Section 206 of the Inland
Waters Revenue Act of 1978, as amended, (33 U.S.C. Section
1804) contains the listing of inland waterways subject to
fuel taxes paid in to the IWTF. The Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, from St. Mark's River, Florida, to Brownsville,
Texas, is included on that list; and (3) The Corps' decision
to provide, in lieu of raising the Algiers Canal Levees to
100-year level of protection, works along the Algiers Canal
and the construction of a navigation closure structure
complex on the GIWW does not preclude this according to its
internal policy associated with navigation and section 206 of
the Inland Waters Revenue Act of 1978.
The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) closure structure
across the Algiers Canal is part of the West Bank and
Vicinity project. Its purpose is to provide hurricane and
storm damage risk reduction. The GIWW closure structure will
only be operated when needed to prevent damages from storm
surge, or during maintenance exercises of the structure and
pumps. When Congress authorized this project, it specified
that the non-Federal Sponsor is responsible for the costs of
operation and maintenance. Additional authority and funding
would be required for the Corps to operate and maintain the
hurricane and storm damage reduction closure structure across
the Algiers canal.
Issue 6: New Orleans to Venice, Jesuit Bend 100-year protection
REQUEST: Formal commitment to Local Preferred Plan (LPP),
with milestone schedule, and a minimally visible closure at
Oakville.
The Corps is receptive to implementing a LPP for Jesuit
Bend as part of the incorporation of non-Federal levees into
the Federal New Orleans to Venice project. To date, the State
and Plaquemines Parish have not identified a specific LPP
that they are certain they want to pursue. They have asked
the Corps to assist them in the analytical effort necessary
to determine the cost of the plan and whether or not it
should be pursued at non-Federal expense. The State and
Parish must enter into a written agreement with the Corps in
which the State and Parish agree to pay for this analysis.
Once the agreement is executed, the Corps will complete the
analysis within four months. If the State and the Parish
determine that they want to pursue a LPP, the LPP must be
approved by the ASA(CW). Our offices will work expeditiously
to approve an LPP when presented. The Corps plans to
construct a swing gate for closure at Oakville for the West
Bank and Vicinity project. This closure option was considered
along with several other closure options, including a
minimally visible closure option. The Corps has determined
that the swing gate option was a superior closure option from
a risk, reliability, and operation and maintenance
standpoint.
Issue 7: Lower Atchafalaya Basin Backwater Flood Protection
REQUEST: Corps produce the study on the backwater flood
issue, as committed in writing to Mayor Matte on Nov 2007 and
Dec 2008. Because the issue pertains to the Atchafalaya River
and the Floodway Basin, such a study clearly should be
covered under MR&T. Furthermore, the original solution to the
backwater flooding, the Avoca Island Levee Extension, was
deemed to be under MR&T; so should any other solution to be
studied or proposed.
The Corps has the authority to conduct a study addressing
this backwater flooding issue and is working with the local
representatives on scope and schedule. The study would
determine if there is Federal interest and would determine if
the recommended solution can be implemented within existing
MR&T project authority or if additional authority would be
required. The Corps is willing to pursue this study effort.
However, since this study is a new activity, an appropriation
is required to initiate this effort.
Issue 8: Louisiana Highway 3241
REQUEST: Corps create a significantly accelerated
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or other timetable
compared to the current timetable.
Similar EIS's typically take two to three years to
complete. The Corps is working with the Louisiana Department
of Transportation and Development to streamline this process
and to expedite completion of the Louisiana Highway 3241 EIS.
Significant progress has been made on this front and the
current schedule for completing this effort already has been
reduced to 18 months. The Corps will adopt other streamlining
proposals provided they are acceptable under applicable law
and regulation. The Corps will provide your office with
monthly reports advising you of further schedule adjustments.
Issue 9: Louisiana Water Resources Council
REQUEST: Corps create and fund the Louisiana Water
Resources Council, as mandated in WRDA 2007.
The Corps previously planned to establish the Louisiana
Water Resources Council with appropriations specifically made
available for this purpose. The Corps will now use existing
appropriations. The Corps has developed a proposed draft
charter that was forwarded to the State of Louisiana on
February, 26, 2010, and has received initial comments that
are under consideration.
We trust that it is evident the Corps and the Army have
listened to you carefully and are providing the answers in
this letter as our best attempt to address your concerns. We
both look forward to resolving the nomination hold on a very
able and deserving General Officer in the very near future.
Very truly yours,
Jo-Ellen Darcy,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
R. L. Van Antwerp,
Lieutenant General, US Army,
Chief of Engineers.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, March 16, 2010.
Hon. Jo-Ellen Darcy,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Washington,
DC.
Lieutenant General Robert Van Antwerp,
Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC.
Re Brigadier General Walsh Issues.
Dear Secretary Darcy and Lieutenant General Van Antwerp:
Thank you for our most recent meeting two weeks ago and the
commitments you made, including to have the Louisiana Water
Resources Council operating within four months of that
meeting.
I identified a finite number of follow-up questions/
requests at that meeting. Although you always underscore how
time-sensitive Brigadier General Walsh's promotion is, you
still have not responded to those questions/requests,
including in your letter of March 12, 2010.
In one final effort to resolve this impasse, I offer the
following very short list of three items, some of the details
of which are different from our last discussion. Please
indicate in writing if the Corps can honor all of these
requests.
1. Outfall Cauals/Pump to the River
Request: Corps conduct within 18 months a formal cost/
benefit analysis, using existing Corps' authority and money,
of previously cited project options 1, 2, 2a, and any other
options the Corps deems advisable to consider. This cost/
benefit analysis to be peer reviewed by the soon-to-be
operational Louisiana Water Resources Council. The Corps
clearly has the authority for this study under previous
language and can find the money for it if it wants to.
Regarding Lieutenant General Van Antwerp's suggestion at our
last meeting that this must be a full feasibility-level
analysis, the Corps was given broad authority to do post-
Katrina work without full feasibility studies and in an
expedited manner, and has not even performed feasibility-
level analysis on Option 1.
2. AGMAC
Request:
Option A--Corps provide containment areas for the
deposition of spoil material using O&M funds which should be
constructed to provide embankment stabilization and
reestablish the berm that historically provided storm surge
attenuation benefits to Vermilion Parish. Thus, Corps O&M
authority can be used to help solve the 902b cost issue. This
would be directly analogous to O&M work done on the MRGO. If
O&M funds are not available, the Corps/Administration would
proactively request and support the appropriation of such O&M
funds as are necessary.
Option B--Corps successfully obtain final approval at the
state level of a CWPPRA program which, when combined with the
Corps' WRDA authority, accomplishes the bank build-up as
authorized and intended in WRDA. This will require some type
of special/emergency CWPPRA meeting.
[[Page S2285]]
3. Morganza to the Gulf
Request:
Option A--Corps restart the lock design on the Houma
Navigation Canal using existing authority and move the lock
forward as an independent project. In 1998, a Chiefs Report
established authority to move the lock forward outside of the
overall Morganza Project in response to a WRDA 1996-directed
study. The Corps would either use this existing authority to
move the lock forward independently or proactively support
language in the next WRDA to do so. (The reason I am not
pursuing Lieutenant General Van Antwerp's suggestion at our
most recent meeting that we work on full project
authorization language for a 2011 WRDA subject to a Chief's
Report, is because the re-study of the project is not due
until December 2012, and contingent authorizations for
projects have only been granted up to December 31 of the year
of a WRDA's passage.)
Option B--Corps outline any other way the entire Morganza
to the Gulf project or a significant portion of it is
authorized and moves forward under the new WRDA, assuming a
new WRDA is passed in 2011. If Corps cannot do this, then you
are admitting that you plan on our missing the next WRDA
train yet again regarding this vital and long-suffering
project, which is completely unacceptable.
These three goals can clearly be met under the Corps'
significant existing authority and flexibility. If you truly
want to do so but need to explore the above methods more
fully before transmitting a written response, please have
your staff contact Glen MacDonald of my office and Garrett
Graves of the State of Louisiana. If, on the other hand,
these three goals are not going to be met by the Corps, I
look forward to moving on with an existing Major General for
the position in question.
Sincerely,
David Vitter,
U.S. Senator.
____
Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant
Secretary, Civil Works,
Washington DC, March 19, 2010.
Hon. David Vitter,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Vitter: This letter is in response to your
letter of March 16, 2010. On March 12, 2010, we responded to
your previous letter and to questions raised in several
meetings addressing nine specific issues. In your letter of
March 16, you posed three follow-on questions, which are
addressed below. In summary, the responses we provided on
March 12, 2010 represent the best way forward within the
existing law, funding and policy. The new requests in your
most recent letter either require changes to law or changes
to policy which, given current legal and fiscal constraints,
we regretfully cannot support.
1: Outfall Canals/Pump to the River
REQUEST: Corps conduct within 18 months a formal cost/
benefit analysis using existing Corps' authority and money,
of previously cited project options 1, 2, 2a, and any other
options the Corps deems advisable to consider. This cost/
benefit analysis to be peer reviewed by the soon-to-be
operational Louisiana Water Resources Council. The Corps
clearly has the authority for this study under previous
language and can find the money for it if it wants to.
Regarding Lieutenant General Van Antwerp's suggestion at our
last meeting that this must be a full feasibility-level
analysis, the Corps was given broad authority to do post-
Katrina work without full feasibility studies and in an
expedited manner, and has not even performed feasibility-
level analysis on Option 1.
Following Hurricane Katrina, the Administration requested
authorization and funding for the work referred to as Option
1 for the purpose of reducing exposure of the interior of the
City of New Orleans to surge from Lake Pontchartrain.
Congress authorized and funded Option 1 in the 4th
Supplemental, P.L. 109-234 and the 6th Supplemental, P.L.
110-252. This construction work is being completed under a
design/build contract, which incorporates ongoing planning
and design while the project is being built.
Your new request is that the Corps complete a formal cost/
benefit analysis of Options 1, 2, 2a, and other possible
appropriate options, within 18 months. Determining whether
and how the City's interior drainage facilities could be
improved is a complex and extensive undertaking. As we have
stated previously, the Corps is willing to proceed with such
a study; however, we estimate that it will take approximately
36 months to produce a cost/benefit analysis that would
provide Congress with adequate information to make an
informed decision on whether to authorize construction of
Option 2, 2a, or some other option.
You also suggested that we complete the study with existing
appropriations. The appropriations provided by Congress were
for the purpose of hurricane and storm damage risk reduction.
Options 2 and 2a would address interior drainage issues
without providing additional storm surge protection. The
Administration's focus is on providing the storm surge
protection for the City of New Orleans that Congress expected
us to provide on a priority basis. It would not be
appropriate to divert existing appropriations away from this
high priority objective.
2: AGMAC
REQUEST:
Option A--Corps provide containment areas for the
deposition of spoil material using O&M funds which should be
constructed to provide embankment stabilization and
reestablish the berm that historically provided storm surge
attenuation benefits to Vermilion Parish. Thus, Corps O&M
authority can be used to help solve the 902b cost issue. This
would be directly analogous to O&M work done on the MRGO. If
O&M funds are not available, the Corps/Administration would
proactively request and support the appropriation of such O&M
funds as are necessary.
Option B--Corps successfully obtain final approval at the
state level of a CWPPRA program which, when combined with the
Corps' WRDA authority, accomplishes the bank build-up as
authorized and intended in WRDA. This will require some type
of special/emergency CWPPRA meeting.
Your new AGMAC request envisions using Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) funds to construct containment areas for
the deposition of spoil materials to provide embankment
stabilization and reestablishment of the berm that
historically provided storm surge attenuation benefits to
Vermilion Parish. You believe that this would help to solve
the section 902 of WRDA 86 cost issue related to the Port of
Iberia navigation project authorized in Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 2007 at a total cost of
$131,250,000. The Corps does not have authority to use O&M
funds to construct projects or separable elements of
projects, nor does the Army have authority to reprogram O&M
or any other Civil Works funds to initiate a previously
unfunded project. This is not analogous to O&M work done on
the MRGO. In that case, Congress specified that the Corps
undertake certain enumerated activities with appropriations
made available for O&M.
There is an established nomination process under the CWPPRA
program, as outlined in the CWPRRA project standard operating
procedure manual dated June 3, 2009, whereby agencies,
parishes, landowners, and other individuals may confer to
further develop projects. The guidelines suggest that
nominated projects should be developed to support one or more
``Coast 2050'' strategies to create, restore, protect or
enhance coastal wetlands. Should this project make it through
the CWPPRA nomination process, the Corps, as a member of the
Task Force, will support its inclusion in the CWPPRA program.
3: Morganza to the Gulf
REQUEST:
Option A--Corps restart the lock design on the Houma
Navigation Canal using existing authority and move the lock
forward as an independent project. In 1998, a Chief's Report
established authority to move the lock forward outside of the
overall Morganza Project in response to a WRDA 1996-directed
study. The Corps would either use this existing authority to
move the lock forward independently or proactively support
language in the next WRDA to do so. (The reason I am not
pursuing Lieutenant General Van Antwerp's suggestion at our
most recent meeting that we work on full project
authorization language for a 2011 WRDA subject to a Chief's
Report, is because the re-study of the project is not due
until December 2012, and contingent authorization for
projects have only been granted up to December 31 of the year
of a WRDA's passage).
Option B--Corps outline any other way the entire Morganza
to the Gulf project or a significant portion of it is
authorized and moves forward under the new WRDA, assuming a
new WRDA is passed in 2011. If Corps cannot do this, then you
are admitting that you plan on our missing the next WRDA
train yet again regarding this vital and long-suffering
project, which is completely unacceptable.
The Corps does not have authority to implement the Houma
Navigation Lock as an independent project. Section 425 of
WRDA 1996 authorized a study of an independent lock, but did
not authorize construction. Section 425 in part reads . . .
``The Secretary shall conduct a study of environmental, flood
control, and navigation impacts associated with the
construction of a lock structure in the Houma Navigation
Canal as an independent feature of the overall damage
prevention study being conducted under the Morganza,
Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico feasibility study.'' The
Corps conducted a study in response to Section 425, but that
study did not recommend construction of an independent Houma
Navigation Lock feature due to uncertainties of benefits and
concerns over justification of an independent lock structure.
As a result, a Chief's Report was not completed for the Houma
Navigation Lock project.
The Army understands the importance of completing the
Morganza to the Gulf project reanalysis, and will continue to
look for ways to move forward as expeditiously as possible on
the Post Authorization Change report required to support a
request for additional authorization. As noted previously,
our best estimate is this report will be completed by
December 2012. You have our commitment that we will continue
to seek ways to accelerate this schedule.
Very truly yours,
Jo-Ellen Darcy,
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
R. L. Van Antwerp,
Lieutenant General, US Army,
Chief of Engineers.
Mr. DORGAN. Simply, GEN Michael Walsh is someone I have known for a
[[Page S2286]]
long time. He is an extraordinary soldier and a patriotic American who
doesn't deserve, and never deserved, to have his promotion derailed for
6 months by one Member of the Senate. That is not fair. That is using
this person, this patriot, as a pawn in trying to extract from the
Corps of Engineers something the Appropriations Committee has already
voted against, in one case.
In other cases, it is something that the Corps of Engineers cannot
legally do without authorization from Congress. We cannot do that to
soldiers who have served their country. That is not fair.
I am not going to ask consent today because my colleague, Senator
Levin, previously asked consent, and Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, on
behalf of Senator Vitter, the other day objected to this promotion. But
I will ask my colleague from Louisiana to stand down on this and give
this soldier the respect and honor and the due that is owed him by the
Congress.
The Armed Services Committee, with its chairman and ranking
Republican member, unanimously decided that this good soldier should be
promoted to the rank of a two-star general. That was 6 months ago. Six
months later, he is a pawn on the floor of the Senate held by one
person trying to extract from the Corps of Engineers some things that
the Corps cannot possibly do, and some things that are not wise to do,
and I would not support in any event.
As I said when I started, I would not come to the floor of the Senate
and criticize a colleague without first informing him of that
criticism. I did that. I don't take any measure of satisfaction in
criticizing a colleague. But I will tell you this: What happened to
this general is just flat wrong. There is no way for anybody in this
Congress to justify holding this general hostage for 6 months in his
promotion to major general.
I ask my colleague from Louisiana to end this hold, to give this
soldier his due. This soldier has earned his second star, and 6 months
ago this Congress should have voted in response to the unanimous vote
by the Armed Services Committee to give this soldier his second star. I
hope that soon my colleague will delete that hold so my colleague from
Michigan can seek unanimous consent to do right by GEN Michael Walsh.
I yield the floor and 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague wishes to offer an amendment.
I want to make sure there is time available to him.
Mr. COBURN. I am only going to take 5 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. 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 that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3726 to Amendment No. 3721
(Purpose: To pay for the full cost of extending additional unemployment
insurance and other Federal programs)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for giving me a short
time to deal with these two amendments. I have an amendment at the desk
that I call up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 3726 to amendment No. 3721.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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.'')
Amendment No. 3727 to Amendment No. 3721
(Purpose: To pay for the full cost of extending additional unemployment
insurance and other Federal programs)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and my next amendment be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 3727 to amendment No. 3721.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. COBURN. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague from
North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I again ask unanimous consent to speak as
in morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Internet
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we just completed a hearing moments ago in
the Senate Commerce Committee on something that has received some
headlines recently, although in the scheme of things, it is not ranking
with health care or energy or education reform. It is the issue of a
circuit court decision a week ago in the Comcast case dealing with the
Federal Communications Commission and its ability or inability to be a
referee with respect to the free market system and the Internet.
The Internet is an extraordinary innovation in our lives. We tend to
take it for granted, I suppose, because it is so normal for all of us
every day to use the Internet, whether it is a wireless device or a
laptop computer, or whatever. We use the Internet in so many different
ways.
The question is: What is the regulatory approach to the Internet? We
know what we have done for telephones over the many years, the many
decades of regulatory capability. What is it for the Internet?
What we have always had for the Internet from its origin is what is
called a free and open Internet, the open architecture. Anybody can get
on the Internet with their Web site, and anybody from the rest of the
world who has broadband capability or Internet capability can access
that site.
A man named Larry and a man named Sergey in a dorm room in California
conceived of something which 10 years later we know as Google. What if
somebody had said to Larry and Sergey: You know what, you are in a dorm
room, you are not much of a business; you only have two employees. We
want to charge you for being able to get on our system so others can
see you. There would not have been Google, would there?
Free and open architecture of the Internet means anybody, anyplace,
any time can access anything. I told a story in the Commerce Committee
about going to the home I grew up in in a town of slightly less than
300 people. I had not been back to my boyhood home since I was a
teenager. I knocked on the door in my hometown and asked the woman if I
could see the home I grew up in. She said: Of course.
In the shed where you walk in first, there was cardboard and tape.
And in the kitchen just off the shed, the woman had a camera and a
little arm that stuck out of a little appendage she had by the kitchen
counter. She was taking a picture of a bracelet that was hanging from
this arm. I said: What are you photographing?
She said: I am photographing a bracelet because I sell jewelry on the
Internet.
From a town of 250 or 300 people in my little two-bedroom white house
in that small town, this woman has an Internet business. Her Web site
can be accessed by anybody in the world. She is not a big business
person. She makes some money. It could not have happened years ago but
can happen now in that small town. It can happen in any town. Anybody
around the world can access her Web site. But what if somebody said: We
are going to decide which Web sites are going to get on our system.
That is a gatekeeper, a provider
[[Page S2287]]
that is deciding we are going to pick winners and losers.
We do not do that. We let the marketplace pick winners and losers on
the Internet. That is why the Internet grew. Its origin and growth was
under something called a nondiscrimination rule. You cannot
discriminate. Just like telephone service, you cannot discriminate.
The FCC, under former Chairman Powell, moved the Internet from a
telephone service to an information service, and that is what the
lawsuit was about. Comcast brought a lawsuit and said under Title I of
the Communications Act, as an information service, the FCC does not
have the authority with respect to Internet freedom as I call it, to
impose net neutrality rules. The circuit court said the FCC does not
have that authority under Title I. That gets very technical and very
legal.
The question is: What does the FCC do now? The question is what
should we aspire to achieve for the Internet in the long term? Some say
hands off, let's have what is called in the hearing today a light
touch. I said: I am not interested in a light touch; I am interested in
the right touch by regulators. I have just seen a decade in which
regulators at the SEC and the CFTC and others who engaged in financial
regulations said: We are engaged in light touch. In fact, we are
engaged in no touch. We will be blind for 8 years. We will not even
look. We are regulators, but we intend to get paid. We do not even care
what you do. That is the ultimate light touch, but I have had a
bellyful of that. I want regulators to regulate effectively to make
sure the market remains open and free and fair. That is the job of a
regulator. That is the job of the FCC.
We are going to have a big debate about this in the Congress. But
first and foremost, I hope the Federal Communications Commission takes
action under its own authority because it has plenty of authority to
respond to this decision. It has authority under Title II of the
Communications Act, and it has other authorities it can use. I
encourage it to proceed. I hope that is the case.
Second, Senator Snowe and I and others on a bipartisan basis will
continue to press the Congress to enact net neutrality, what I call
Internet freedom, legislation, because if the FCC does not do it, let's
make sure we do it in law.
This is a very important issue. The issue of the Internet and the
question of who controls the Internet, if anybody, is very important.
At town meetings when somebody says, The Federal Government cannot do
anything right, I say there are a number of things it cannot do right,
but answer the question, Who invented the Internet? Who created the
Internet? The Federal Government did that. It started here. It is a
wonderful innovation that has changed our lives in so many wonderful
ways. I just described one with the woman living in my former boyhood
home. It changed her life. But that is multiplied a billion times
around this world.
We need to make certain the Internet remains open and free. The free
market system is the best system I know with which to allocate goods
and services. I know none better. But I also understand that the free
market system needs referees to make sure it remains free and open, to
call the fouls, to wear the striped shirt with the whistle and call the
fouls when necessary. It did not happen in the financial area. It did
not happen at all. When people traded things that did not exist, buying
things from people who did not have them, making money on both sides,
all of a sudden there should have been regulators saying: Wait, this is
gambling. You can't do that. You are putting the American people at
risk. On the telecommunications side, we need effective regulatory
capability, not to stifle or injure the free market but to protect it.
This is a very important issue in the wake of the circuit court
decision. I believe Chairman Genachowski has the capability and
authority to move forward in the Federal Communications Commission to
do the right thing, and I encourage him to do that.
I know as well going forward that legislation, perhaps not this year
but legislation in future Congresses will reaffirm the opportunity for
the FCC to protect and nurture a free and open architecture of the
Internet. I believe it is critically important.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, before the Senator yields, in the form of
a question, I deeply appreciate the Senator's statement. He is on the
right track. I believe the Internet should be free and open, too. I was
stunned by the circuit court decision.
I ask the Senator if he could tell us how he thinks the FCC can
remedy the situation now without legislation, and if the FCC cannot, we
need legislation. But I am asking for the Senator's view again. He
already stated it once. Maybe he can expand on it further.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana. Let me
state the reason for the urgency. I described it today, but it has been
said in other venues. Mr. Whitacre from AT&T most famously said it:
These are my pipes. I want Google to pay for the use of my pipes. That
was a famous statement by Mr. Whitacre. Yes, those pipes belong to the
providers, but there is a requirement there be a nondiscrimination
approach to the use of those pipes. We do not want providers to set up
tollbooths or gates to say: OK, you are a big site out there. We are
going to charge you to use this. Maybe that person cannot pay the
charge. The billions of people who would access that site now will not
have access because there is a gatekeeper who said: We are only going
to allow these folks to be on our site. That is the point of it.
There is, it seems to me, a potential problem that could not have
existed previously when the nondiscrimination rules existed. But now
that the nondiscrimination rules were obliterated, we need to restore
them.
The Senator from Montana asked the question how can the Federal
Communications Commission do this. I believe there are general powers
in the Federal Communications Commission Act, and I believe the
Commission itself has general powers that will allow it to act in a
manner that the court would view to be in compliance with the law.
The FCC is not interested in doing something that it does not have
the legal authority to do. I believe they have the capability. They
certainly have the capability to determine that the Internet is
regulated under Title II in which they would have the capability to
enforce the nondiscrimination rule.
Again, this is not going to be one of those headline issues, but
nonetheless it is a very important issue and one we need to get right.
The last time we had a discussion about this issue in the Commerce
Committee, it was a very contentious discussion. Senator Snowe and I
offered an amendment that lost on an 11-to-11 tie. This is not an easy
issue. There are a lot of people who feel strongly on both sides, but I
come down on the side of saying the way the Internet was conceived and
the way it grew and the way it flourished was with nondiscrimination
rules that say anybody--it is the ultimate democracy--anybody anywhere
can set up a site and anyone in the world can access that site. That is
the genius of this great innovation in our lives.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. 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. Mr. President, the Senate just rejected the previous
Coburn amendment by a vote of 51 to 46. The Senate, I might say,
rejected an attempt by the Senator from Oklahoma to give the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget sweeping powers to cut
unobligated balances by billions of dollars.
The Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, explained why that would be unwise. Essentially, there are
many contracts which take more than 1 year to be fulfilled--building
ships, for example, aircraft carriers, and so on. It takes a good
number of years to build them, and it would make no sense to rescind
all those unobligated balances.
The Senator from Oklahoma has two more amendments. One in particular
is virtually the same amendment. It gives the Director of OMB powers to
cut unobligated balances by billions of dollars, so the arguments of
the Senator
[[Page S2288]]
from Hawaii would apply there as well. So the same reasons given for
opposing the Coburn amendment just a short while ago--and the one that
was defeated--should be the same reasons that would apply with respect
to this next Coburn amendment that we will be voting on in the not-too-
distant future.
The Senator from Oklahoma has another amendment which would reverse
decisions of the Congress through the appropriations process, and it
also would, I might say, affect some tax provisions that would be
inappropriate if we were to pass them now.
I would remind my colleagues if the Coburn amendment were to be
adopted, there is another problem with it; that is, the delay of the
extension of unemployment benefits. Because if it were to pass, it
would have to go over to the House, and I am not quite sure how quickly
the House would accept the Coburn amendment. They have said many times
they would not accept it; that they would send it back, probably as is,
without the pay-fors on the extension of unemployment benefits. So we
would just be delaying unemployment benefits to people who were cut off
a few days ago because of the failure of Congress to act on the
extension.
So I would suggest to my colleagues that the other two amendments the
Senator from Oklahoma has offered are very similar to the first
amendment he offered. The Senate defeated that first amendment by a
vote of 51 to 46, and I suggest that these other two amendments be
defeated when they are brought up because then we can give needed
unemployment benefits to people who need it during this time of
recession.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. 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. Mr. President, not to belabor the point, but at a hearing
I held in the Finance Committee this morning, we heard from Mark Zandi,
who is the chief economist and cofounder of Moody's Analytics, and he
was talking about unemployment benefits.
In fact, part of the hearing was to determine ways to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of unemployment benefits. Actually, the
panel came up with a lot of very interesting ideas. Different States
are, frankly, using the unemployment program to help create jobs as
well as make payments.
Anyway, at this hearing, Mr. Zandi volunteered, frankly, that now is
not the time for extension of unemployment benefits to be paid for. He
said that is self-defeating. It is unproductive. He said, now that we
are in a recession, frankly, unemployment compensation benefits should
not be paid for.
Who is Mark Zandi? Mark Zandi is a moderate economist, very well
respected by Senators on both sides of the aisle. He also was the
adviser for Presidential candidate John McCain--Mark Zandi was. The
point is, clearly, he is not a liberal, leftwing economist. I don't
know even now if he is a moderate economist. But whatever he is--
moderate, leftwing or liberal--he is an economist, and he has worked
for Presidential candidate John McCain. He volunteered today on the
record at the Finance Committee hearing that it would not be wise to
pay for unemployment benefits at this time because that would be self-
defeating.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have at the desk two cloture motions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Baucus
substitute amendment No. 3721 to H.R. 4851, a bill to provide
a temporary extension of certain programs, and for other
purposes.
John D. Rockefeller, IV, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeanne
Shaheen, Al Franken, Daniel K. Akaka, Kent Conrad,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray, Tom Udall, Bernard
Sanders, Richard J. Durbin, Ron Wyden, Robert P. Casey,
Jr., Edward E. Kaufman, Patrick J. Leahy, Mark L.
Pryor, Byron L. Dorgan.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the second motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 4851, a bill
to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, and for
other purposes.
John D. Rockefeller, IV, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeanne
Shaheen, Al Franken, Daniel K. Akaka, Kent Conrad,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray, Tom Udall, Bernard
Sanders, Richard J. Durbin, Ron Wyden, Robert P. Casey,
Jr., Edward E. Kaufman, Patrick J. Leahy, Mark L.
Pryor, Byron L. Dorgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Budget Act
was not waived was agreed to, and the motion to reconsider was agreed
to. The question on reconsideration is on the Baucus motion to waive
all applicable budget discipline for the consideration of amendment No.
3721, as modified, and the underlying bill.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 112 Leg.]
YEAS--60
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--40
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). On this vote the yeas
are 60, the nays are 40. Upon reconsideration, three-fifths of the
Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the
motion is agreed to.
The motion to waive the point of order made pursuant to section 4(g)
of the Pay-As-You-Go Act having been reconsidered and agreed to, the
Chair's previous action sustaining the point of order is annulled and
the language previously stricken by the Chair is now restored to the
amendment.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorums, as required under rule XXII, be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
vote explanation
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, due to an official event in New Jersey,
I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 109. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to invoke cloture on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 4851, the Continuing Extension Act of 2010.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak as in morning
business.
[[Page S2289]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________